





■ 

•;'0 : 1 






LIE OF CONGRESS. 


tielf jjfl. 


' 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, j 























1 . 1 


'•'/V'^.j.lfifV 




^vv^HjS&i? 


1 




■>:'-; £ 


■ 


'■'//&:< 
















m 



■ 



Ki"; 



I ^| 



Hi 

■■•#■*■>■ 

NuBSiHI 



Treatise on Justification. 



R. N. DAVIES, 

A MEMBER OF THE ILLINOIS ANNUAL CONFERENCE. 



' Ev toutw Ttaq 6 7rt<TT£V(vv dixaiourat. 




CINCINNATI: 
HITCHCOCK AND WALDEN. 

NEW YORK: NELSON AND PHILLIPS. 

1878. 



Oh 



s>. 



Copyright by 

HITCHCOCK & WALDEN, 

1878. 



$z 



The Library 
of Congress 

washington 



LC Control Number 



tmp96 027957 



PREFACE. 



THE history of these few leaves is soon 
told. During a ministry of more than 
twenty-five years, it has frequently become the 
author's duty publicly to vindicate the Arminian 
doctrine of justification. The notes and other 
materials which have accumulated under these 
circumstances form the greater portion of this 
little volume. Under the influence of oft re- 
peated suggestions from various persons, they 
are now offered to the world in book-form. As 
a matter of course, so small a treatise on so 
great a subject must be very far from being an 
exhaustive one. It is a contribution toward the 
defense of this part of Methodist theology 
against the attacks which have been made upon 
it during the author's ministry. The discussion 
is neither experimental nor practical, but doc- 
trinal. It is written, not for ripe scholars, nor 



4 PREFACE. 

for theologians of extensive reading, but for 
young preachers and undergraduates in divinity. 
Little or no attention has been paid to beauty 
or ornament in style; but it has been the con- 
stant desire to state the argument in a clear, 
forcible, courteous manner. It is now published 
in the hope that it may exert some little influ- 
ence in leading men into "the oneness of the 
faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God." 

R. N. DAVIES. 
Mattoon, III., June 13, 1878. 



CONTENTS. 



PAGE. 

I. Meaning of the Terms "Justify" and "Justifi- 
cation," 7 

II. The Punishment and Forgiveness of Sin, . 37 

III. Imputation of Christ's Righteousness Consid- 

ered 70 

IV. Imputation of Faith for Righteousness, . 104 

V. Condition of Justification, 115 

VI. Objections to the Doctrine of "Justification 

by Faith Only," 175 

VII. Arguments in Proof of the Doctrine of "Jus- 
tification by Faith Only," . . . . 197 

VIII. Nature of Justifying Faith 216 

IX. Faith the Gift of God, 221 

X. Witness of the Spirit, 229 



JUSTIFICATION. 



i. 



MEANING OF THE TERMS "JUSTIFY" AND 
"JUSTIFICATION." 

THE word "justify" is used in the Bible with 
a wide range of meaning. But all the in- 
stances in which it is used to denote an act of 
God toward man may be reduced to two classes: 
First. Those in which the man is acquitted from 
a charge of guilt, and his innocence vindicated. 
Thus, "I will not justify the wicked," Ex. xxiii, 
7; that is, I will not acquit or vindicate the 
wicked. "How then can a man be justified with 
God" (Job xxv, 4); "In thy sight shall no man 
living be justified" (Psalms cxliii, 2). The second 
class embraces those texts which speak of God's 
dealing with believing penitents; thus, "All that 
believe are justified;" "Justified freely by his 
grace;" "Justified by faith," and "Justifieth the 
ungodly." What is the meaning of the term "jus- 
tify " in this class of Scriptures?" To this question 



8 JUSTIFICATION. 

three distinct answers are given. Firstly. That to 
il justify, " Stxaiouv, means to make just or righteous. 
Secondly. That it means to declare to be just or 
righteous, and that this is its only meaning when 
used by God concerning man. Thirdly. That in 
the class of texts above referred to, it means 
simply to pardon or forgive sin. 

Let us now review these definitions. 

First. That to "justify" means to make just 
or righteous. This is the definition given to it 
by the majority of Unitarian writers, and also, 
recently, by John Young and Horace Bushnell. 
This definition confounds justification with sanc- 
tification. It attaches the same meaning to "jus- 
tify," which properly belongs to "sanctify" and 
"cleanse." Mr. Young, of Edinburgh, contends 
that we should substitute the word "righten" 
for "justify." But to this there are some for- 
midable objections. I. Nothing would be gained 
by it. The word "righten" has no history, and 
would be more ambiguous than the old term 
"justify." It (righten) might be applied to the 
heart, and thus designate the radical change 
of the new birth; or it might be applied to the 
conduct, and thus designate a change wholly ex- 
terior of the man. 2. If it was limited to ex- 
press a change of the heart, then it would be an 
unwarranted novelty, for "justify" is never used 



MEANING OF TERMS. 9 

to designate the purification of the heart. We 
might safely call for any text, either in the Old 
Testament or in the New, in which ''justify" is 
used in the sense of making righteous, cleansing, 
or sanctifying. 3. It would leave us without a 
term to express fully what God does with the 
believing penitent in regard to his past sins. 

Divine pardon is not an arbitrary act of sov- 
ereign power; but it is an act of mercy, exer- 
cised in accordance with and through the provis* 
ion of a law of pardon. The sinner's pardon is 
both gracious and judicial; and no word so per- 
fectly expresses the nature of this act as the 
word "justify." It is cheerfully granted that 
sanctification always accompanies justification; 
and that, although in the natural order of events 
it is subsequent to justification, yet in point of 
time it is coetaneous with it. Still sanctification 
is distinct from justification, and not to be con- 
founded with it. In 1. Cor. vi, 11, Paul presents 
these as distinct blessings: "But ye are washed, 
but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the 
name of the Lord Jesus." If justification is 
identical with sanctification, then the language of 
the apostle is tautological. 

Dr. Bushnell objects: "It is another fault 
of this legally grounded justification that it con- 
sents by definition to a really appalling fiction, 



10 JUSTIFICATION. 

proposing to justify or pass the subject, not as be- 
ing just, but as if he were just, when confessedly 
he is not." ("Forgiveness and Law," p. 185.) 
Is not this true in every instance of forgiveness, 
either human or divine? The offender is not 
pronounced innocent or just; on the contrary, 
he is pronounced guilty. But he is treated as 
if he were not guilty, treated the same as if he 
had been right; that is, all idea of punishment 
is dismissed. He is not the object of judicial 
anger, but of compassion. We do not seek his 
hurt, but show him kindness. This is the sum 
and substance of forgiveness. What is there in 
it that is inconsistent with either truth or reason? 
Bushnell quotes Isa. liii, 1 1, "By his knowl- 
edge shall my righteous servant justify many," in 
connection with Dan. xii, 3, "They that turn 
many to righteousness," and adds: ''Plainly 
enough there is no thought here of the many 
being judicially acquitted, but in both cases of 
their being made or caused to be righteous." 
The two texts have little or no connection with 
each other. The text in Daniel refers to human 
agency in the salvation of men ; while that in 
Isaiah predicts the success of the Messiah in re- 
deeming men, and is the only text of the two 
which is pertinent to this question. The con- 
text both preceding and succeeding deals not 



MEANING OF TERMS. T I 

with the purification of men, but with their de- 
liverance from punishment through Christ's sac- 
rificial death. This is the theme of the chapter. 
He is set forth as having "borne our griefs and 
carried our sorrows;" "He was wounded for our 
transgressions, bruised for our iniquities: the 
chastisement of our peace was upon him : and 
with his stripes we are healed." This context 
shows that the justification spoken of was foren- 
sic and not moral. But the meaning of the 
words "justify many" is settled by the very 
next clause, "for he shall bear their iniquities." 
There would be no force in the proposition that 
he should make many righteous because he should 
bear their iniquities; that is, bear the punish- 
ment of their sins. There is no necessary con- 
nection between bearing the chastisement of an- 
other and making him righteous; but there is 
a very natural and close connection between 
Christ suffering in our stead and our receiving 
the pardon of sin through faith in his blood. 

"The error of the Romish Church confounds 
Justification and sanctification. So the Council 
of Trent declares that 'justification is not only 
by the remission of sins, but also the sanctifi- 
cation of the inner man; and that the only for- 
mal cause of justification is the righteousness of 
God, not that whereby he is just, but that by 



12 JUSTIFICATION. 

which he makes us just;' that is, inherently so. 
That justification and sanctification go together 
we have seen ; but this is not what is meant by 
the Council. Their doctrine is that man is made 
just or holy, and then justified. The answer to this 
has been already given. God 'justifieth the un- 
godly;' and the Scriptures plainly mean by justi- 
fication not sanctification, but simply the remis- 
sion of sin. . . . The sanctification which 
constitutes a man inherently righteous is con- 
comitant with justification, but does not precede 
it. Before 'condemnation' is taken away, he 
cries out, 'O wretched man that I am, who 
shall deliver me from the body of this death;' 
when 'there is now no condemnation' he 'walks 
not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.' In the 
nature of things, too, justification and sanctifica- 
tion are distinct. The active sanctification of 
the Spirit, taken in itself, either habitually or act- 
ually, and as inherent in us, can in no wise be 
justification, for justification is the remission of 
sins. God gave this Spirit to angels; he gave it 
to Adam in the day of creation, and this Spirit 
did sanctify, and now doth sanctify the blessed 
angels, yet this sanctification is not remission." 
(Watson.) 

The second definition of "justify, " and that 
which now claims our attention, is the definition 



MEANING OF TERMS. 1 3 

given to it by the advocates of Calvinism, in 
which it is affirmed that justify means "to pro- 
nounce or declare righteous," and that this is its 
only meaning- where it is applied by God to the 
sinner. We can not accept this definition, and 
offer as a better one the following: "Aixatouv, when 
applied by God to the sinner, means simply to 
pardon, or forgive sin." This is the definition 
of justify given by Arminians generally. Let us 
examine the Calvinistic definition, "to declare 
righteous," and the Arminian definition, "to par- 
don," together. Calvinists claim that "mere par- 
don is the act of a sovereign waiving the claims 
of the law and discharging the penalty." This 
is doubtless true of mere human pardon, for it 
does not seem possible for a redemptive princi- 
ple to be introduced into mere human law. But 
the statement is not correct when applied to the 
pardon granted by God to a believing penitent. 
God does not pardon by waiving the claims of 
the law; the pardon is granted under the pro- 
visions of a law of remedial mercy. An atone- 
ment has been made for the sins of the offender, 
and by his faith he stands entitled to pardon, 
through the provisions of the law of pardon. 
Hence, when God pardons sin, he does it, not as 
a sovereign in the exercise of royal prerogative, 
but as the "judge of all the earth," giving to 



14 JUSTIFICATION. 

a believing penitent the pardon guaranteed him 
by the law of atonement. The argument of 
Richard Watson on this point is very clear 
and forcible: "We are taught that pardon of 
sin is not an act of prerogative, done above law; 
but a judicial process, done consistently with law. 
For in this process there are three parties. God 
as sovereign : ' Who shall lay any thing to the 
charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth, 
who is he that condemneth? Christ as advocate; 
not defending the guilty, but interceding for 
them : 'It is Christ that died, yea, rather, that 
is risen again, who is even at the right hand 
of God, who also maketh intercession for us.' 
(Rom. viii, 33, 34.) 'And if any man sin, we 
have an advocate with the Father.' (1 John, 
ii, 1.) The third party is man, who is, by his 
own confession, 'guilty,' 'a sinner,' 'ungodly;' 
for repentance in all cases precedes this remis- 
sion of sins, and it both supposes and confesses 
offense and desert of punishment. God is judge 
in this process; not, however, as it has been well 
expressed, 'by the law of creation and of works, 
but by the law of redemption and grace; not 
as merely just, though just, but as merciful; 
not as merciful in general, and ex nnda volnntate y 
without any respect had to satisfaction, but as 
propitiated by the blood of Christ, and having 



MEANING OF TERMS. 1 5 

accepted the propitiation made by his blood; not 
merely propitiated by his blood, but moved by his 
intercession, which he makes as our advocate in 
heaven ; not only pleading the propitiation made 
and accepted, but the repentance and faith of 
the sinner, and the promise of the judge before 
whom he pleads.' (Lawson's 'Theo-Politica.') 
Thus as pardon or justification does not take 
place but upon propitiation, the mediation and 
intercession of a third party, and on the condi- 
tion on the part of the guilty, not only of re- 
pentance, but of 'faith' in Christ's 'blood,' 
which, as before established, means faith in his 
sacrificial death, it is not an act of mere mercy, 
or of prerogative, but one which consists with a 
righteous government, and proceeds on grounds 
which secure the honor of the divine justice." 
Dr. Hodge, of Princeton, in his Systematic 
Theology, Vol. Ill, page 1 21, writes: "It would 
be a perfect solecism to say of a criminal whom 
the executive had pardoned that he was justified ; 
or that a reformed drunkard or thief was justified. 
The word always expresses a judgment — whether 
of the mind, as when one man justifies another 
for his conduct, or officially of a judge. If such 
be the established meaning of the word, it ought 
to settle all controversy as to the nature of justi- 
fication. We are bound to take the words of 



1 6 JUSTIFICATION. 

Scripture in their true established sense; and, 
therefore, when the Bible says ' God justifies the 
believer,' we are not at liberty to say that it 
means that he pardons or that he sanctifies him. 
It means, and can mean only, that he pronounces 
him just." It certainly would not be correct to 
say of a criminal, pardoned by a human governor, 
that he had been justified. "Pardoned" is the 
only suitable word to apply to him. But there 
is very little analogy between the pardon of a 
criminal by the arbitrary act of a sovereign and 
the pardon of a believing penitent by God under 
the provisions of a law of atonement made for 
that purpose. When a human governor pardons 
a criminal there is no satisfaction made to justice, 
either by the criminal or by any third party. The 
pardon is entirely arbitrary and above all law. 
Not so in the case of the pardon <*f a sinner by 
God. The divine pardon is granted in accordance 
with a law made for that purpose. Let us look 
at the application of this law. A believing peni- 
tent is seeking reconciliation with God. Tried by 
the strict requirements of the moral law, he can 
not be justified, for he has broken it. In his re- 
pentance and faith he is led by the Holy Spirit, 
hence is not under the moral law: "If ye be led 
of the Spirit ye are not under the law " (Gal. 
v, 18); "Ye are not under the law, but under 



MEANING OF TERMS. 1 7 

grace " (Rom. vi, 14). He comes seeking justi- 
fication by the law of faith. (Rom. iii, 27.) He 
confesses his sins and seeks forgiveness through 
faith in Christ. He complies with the terms of 
"the law of faith" and God pardons him. His 
pardon is the judicial award of the great Judge ; 
hence he is properly said to be justified, and his 
justification is simple pardon. 

Dr. Hodge further argues that "Condemna- 
tion is not the opposite of either pardon or ref- 
ormation. To condemn is to pronounce guilty 
or worthy of punishment. To justify is to de- 
clare not guilty, or that justice does not demand 
punishment, or that the person condemned can 
not be justly condemned." In human law par- 
don is not the opposite of condemnation, but in 
the New Testament law of pardon it is. A man 
is condemned for unbelief: "He that believeth 
not is condemned already" (John iii, 18); "He 
that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but 
the wrath of God abideth on him" (John iii, 36). 
When a man turns from his unbelief and believes 
in Christ, then God pardons, or justifies, him : 
"Through this man is preached unto you the 
forgiveness of sins, and by him all that believe 
are justified from all things, from which ye could 
not be justified by the law of Moses." (Acts xiii, 

38, 39) 



1 8 justification: 

Dr. Hodge writes: /'For the same reason 
justification can not be mere pardon. Pardon 
does not proceed on the ground of satisfaction. 
A prisoner delivered by a ransom is not pardoned. 
A debtor whose obligations have been canceled 
by a friend becomes entitled to freedom from the 
claims of his creditor. When a sovereign pardons 
a criminal it is not an act of justice, it is not on 
the ground of satisfaction to the law. The Bible, 
therefore, in teaching that justification is on the 
ground of an atonement or satisfaction ; that the 
sinner's guilt is expiated ; that he is redeemed by 
the precious blood of Christ ; and that judgment 
is pronounced upon him as righteous, does there- 
by teach that justification is neither pardon nor 
infusion of righteousness. " (Theol. Vol. Ill, 125.) 
Let us review this paragraph by items. 1st. "A 
prisoner delivered by ransom is not pardoned." 
Concerning the ransom of prisoners among men, 
the foregoing statement may, or may not, be true. 
When made concerning the ransom of a sinner 
by the blood of Christ, it is utterly untrue, as the 
following texts and comments will show: "Being 
justified freely by his grace through the redemp- 
tion that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set 
forth to be a propitiation through faith in his 
blood, to declare his righteousness for the remis- 
sion of sins that are past." (Rom. hi, 24, 25.) 



MEANING OF TERMS. 1 9 

Here the remission of our sins is attributed direct 
to our "redemption" or ransom by Christ. 
Again, "In whom we have redemption through 
his blood, the forgiveness of sins." (Eph. i, 7.) 
Here the " forgiveness of sins" is set forth as the 
great result of "redemption." The same lan- 
guage is used in Colossians i, 14. Dr. Hodge will 
not deny that the believer is " ransomed " by the 
btood of Christ. (See the foregoing texts; also, 
"Christ hath redeemed us," Gal. iii, 13; "Ye 
are bought with a price," 1 Cor. vi, 20; "Re- 
deemed . . . with the precious blood of 
Christ," 1 Peter i, 18, 19). Neither will he deny 
that the believing penitent is pardoned. Will he 
deny that the penitent owes his pardon directly 
to the blood of Christ ? (See the foregoing texts.) 
Dr. Hodge here joins' a copartnership with the 
Socinians. They object to the vicarious sacrifice 
of Christ on the ground that it conflicts with the 
offer of pardon through mercy. Dr. Hodge ob- 
jects to the idea of pardon being the result of our 
ransom by Christ's death. Both he and the So- 
cinians are overthrown by the fact that justifica- 
tion or pardon is conditioned on the sinner's 
repentance and faith. If the sinner's being ran- 
somed by the blood of Christ gives him such a 
legal right to an acquittal from sin that he is not 
pardoned, then that same redemption must also 



20 JUSTIFICATION. 

exonerate him from the duty of repentance and 
faith. But the fact that his ransom does not ex- 
cuse him from repentance and faith, proves that 
he is a proper subject of pardon. 2d. "A debtor 
whose obligations have been canceled by a friend, 
becomes entitled to freedom from the claims of 
his creditor." The whole force and relevancy of 
this objection lies in the assumption that Christ's 
active righteousness is imputed to us, and thus 
cancels our obligations to that law. But the no- 
tion of Christ's active righteousness canceling our 
obligations to the law is unscriptural and absurd. 
"We have no such office ascribed in Scripture to 
the active righteousness of Christ, which is only 
spoken of there in connection with his atonement 
as rendering him a fit victim, or sacrifice, for 
sin — 'he died, the just for the unjust.' " (Wat- 
son.) 3d. "When a sovereign pardons a crimi- 
nal it is not an act of justice. " When the sov- 
ereign is a mere man, pardon may or may not 
be an act of justice. If the latter, it is because 
the man had been unjustly condemned. The 
character of the act will be settled according to 
the nature of the case. In the case of pardon by 
the Divine Sovereign, the pardon is an act of 
mercy and justice combined. It will be an act 
of mercy because the pardon is entirely un- 
merited by the man, and is the work of God's 



MEANING OF TERMS. 21 

pure love ; it is an act of justice because man, 
having been ransomed by Christ's blood, and 
having repented and believed in Christ in com- 
pliance with the terms of pardon, it is just that • 
God pardon him. 4th. "The Bible, therefore, 
in teaching that justification is on the ground of 
an atonement or satisfaction; that the sinner's 
guilt is expiated ; that he is redeemed by the 
precious blood of Christ; and that judgment is 
pronounced upon him as righteous, does thereby 
teach that justification is neither pardon nor infu- 
sion of righteousness." What does Dr. Hodge 
mean by the clause "judgment is pronounced 
upon him as righteous?" If he means that the 
sinner is pronounced absolutely without sin, we 
may safely challenge him to produce a single text 
of Scripture which sustains a proposition so self- 
contradictory and absurd. If he means that the 
penitent, though known to be guilty, is, in con- 
sideration of the blood of Christ, dealt with as 
though he were innocent, that is Scriptural justi- 
fication, and it is simply pardon. 

Dr. Hodge argues that "the doctrine that jus- 
tification consists simply in pardon and conse- 
quent restoration, assumes that the divine law is 
imperfect and mutable." (Theol., Vol. Ill, 125.) 
It is somewhat difficult to see how the proposi- 
tion that "New Testament justification is simply 



22 JUSTIFICATION. 

pardon" should imply that the divine law is im- 
perfect and mutable. By what process Dr. Hodge 
arrives at so strange a conclusion passes our com- 
prehension. If the divine pardon was granted 
without any reference to a vicarious expiation of 
sin, and without any reference to a moral change 
on the part of the offender, then, indeed, it might 
be said that the pardon implied an imperfection 
of law. But it is utterly impossible to entertain 
such a notion when the New Testament doctrine 
of pardon is fairly stated and understood. The 
person seeking pardon is required to repent of 
sin and to come to God with an humble faith in 
Christ, confessing his sins and resting his prayer 
for pardon on the fact that Christ has died in his 
stead. In what way could the majesty of the 
divine law be better sustained than by such a 
plan ? But does Dr. Hodge's theory of justifica- 
tion mend the matter? Is the sanctity and per- 
fection of a law requiring perfect truthfulness 
sustained by the falsity of attributing to the sin- 
ner a righteousness which he never had, and 
which no principle of truth or justice can ever 
make his? 

Dr. Hoclge contends that "justification in- 
cludes or conveys a title to eternal life. Pardon 
is purely negative. It simply removes a penalty. 
It confers no title to benefits not previously 



MEANING OF TERMS. 23 

enjoyed. Eternal life, however, is suspended on 
the positive condition of perfect obedience. The 
merely pardoned sinner has no such obedience. 
He is destitute of what, by the immutable prin- 
ciples of the divine government, is the indispen- 
sable condition of eternal life. He has no title 
to the inheritance promised to the righteous. 
This is not the condition of the believer. The 
merit of Christ is entitled to the reward. And 
the believer, being partaker of that merit, shares 
in that title." (Theol., Vol. Ill, p. 129.) Justi- 
fication, of itself, does not include or convey any 
title to eternal life whatever; it simply removes 
any legal impediment to the bestowment of it 
which might arise on the score of personal guilt. 
Pardon does the same. In pardon there is a remis- 
sion of the penalty, hence a removal of any legal 
impediment to life. Along with justification or 
pardon there come the concomitant blessings of 
heart- purification, adoption, and the witness of 
the Spirit. Dr. Hodge says: "Eternal life, how- 
ever, is suspended on the positive condition of per- 
fect obedience. The merely pardoned sinner has 
no such obedience. He is destitute," etc. The 
proposition that eternal life "is suspended on the 
positive condition of perfect obedience," is of 
more than doubtful truthfulness, and its only 
strength is in its ambiguity. Is Dr. Hodge talk- 



24 JUSTIFICATION. 

ing about eternal life as perfected in heaven or as 
begun on earth ? If he means eternal life in 
heaven, then his proposition is not relevant to 
the subject-matter of discussion, which is the jus- 
tification of the sinner upon earth, and not his 
final salvation in heaven. If Dr. Hodge refers to 
the sinner's entering into eternal life in the mo- 
ment of his justification, then the proposition is 
not true; for the condition of eternal life in that 
period of the man's career is not obedience but 
faith: "He that believeth on the Son hath ever- 
lasting life. " (John hi, 36; v, 24; vi, 47.) Dr. 
Hodge says: "The merely pardoned sinner has 
no such obedience. " Neither has any other mere 
man. "The merit of Christ is entitled to the 
reward." What proof has Dr. Hodge that Christ 
has eternal life as the reward of his active right- 
eousness? If it were true that Christ has his 
eternal life by virtue of his perfect obedience, 
could his obedience be more than perfect? If a 
perfect obedience were demanded of each one 
as the condition of eternal life, how could the 
obedience of Christ (seeing that it could not 
be more than perfect) merit eternal life for any 
but himself? If the law of God demands of 
each man a perfect merit, and Christ's merit can 
not be more than perfect, how can any one else 
share those merits with him? On what principle 



MEANING OF TERMS. 25 

of truth or philosophy can one man be said to 
share in actions which belong wholly to another? 
The sinner comes to God confessing his sin, not 
daring to claim any righteousness of his own, 
much less does he dare to make a fictitious claim 
to the righteousness of another, but casts himself 
wholly on the mercy of God, pleads the name of 
Christ; God imputes his faith to him for righteous- 
ness, pardons his sins, and this pardon is a Scrip- 
tural justification. 

But let us examine these conflicting definitions 
in the iight of Scriptural usage: 

' 'I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy trans- 
gressions for mine own sake, and will not remem- 
ber thy sins. Put me in remembrance : let us 
plead together : declare thou that thou mayest 
be justified." (Isa. xliii, 25, 26.) Here, unques- 
tionably, "justified" has the same meaning with 
the clauses "blotteth out thy transgressions" 
and "will not remember thy sins." God did not 
call on them to show their good works in order 
that they might be vindicated, but to confess their 
sins in order that they might be pardoned. There 
would be no pertinence in God proclaiming his 
willingness to blot out their transgressions, etc., 
if he meant that they should vindicate themselves 
from all guilt. But these assurances of pardon- 
ing mercy were very appropriate if he meant that 



26 JUSTIFICATION. 

they should confess their sins in order that 
he might pardon them. This conclusion is sus- 
tained by the Septuagint, which reads, " Xfye 
ob rag Avofiia^ (Too 7zpa>roq *va dtY.aiujQ^q" " declare 
(confess) thou thy sins first, that thou mayest be 
justified." Here ''justified" can have no other 
meaning but pardoned. 

"Surely shall one say, In the Lord have I 
righteousness and strength: even to him shall men 
come; and all that are incensed against him 
shall be ashamed. In the Lord shall all the seed 
of Israel be justified, and shall glory." (Isa. xlv, 
24, 25. I can not do better here than give the 
notes of Mr. Barnes on this text. "Be regarded 
and treated as righteous. Their sins shall be 
pardoned, and they shall be acknowledged and 
treated as the children of God. (See notes on 
Rom. iii, 24, 25.) To justify here is not to pro- 
nounce them innocent, or to regard them as de- 
serving of his favors; but it is to receive them 
into favor, and to resolve to treat them as if they 
had not sinned; that is, to treat them as if they 
were righteous. All this by the mere mercy 
and grace of God, and is through the merits of 
the Redeemer who died in their place." 

"And the publican, standing afar off, would 
not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, 
but smote upon his breast, saying, God be mer- 



MEANING OF TERMS. 2J 

ciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went 
down to his house justified rather than the other." 
(Luke xviii, 13, 14.) The publican unquestion- 
ably makes his prayer to God as to his judge. 
He asks and receives pardoning- mercy, and 
Christ says he was justified. It would seem im- 
possible to doubt that the pardon craved and 
the justification granted were one and the same 
thing. "We can not say that he obtained right- 
eousness by any merit of works. The meaning 
therefore is, that after he had obtained the par- 
don of his sins he was considered as righteous 
in the sight of God. He was righteous, there- 
fore, not through any approbation of his works, 
but through God's gracious absolution. Where- 
fore Ambrose beautifully styles confession of 
sins a legitimate justification." (Calvin.) "Con- 
fess thy sins first, that thou mayest be justified." 
Such was the exhortation given by Isaiah ; the 
publican came confessing his sins, and his sins 
were forgiven him. "Not merely was he justi- 
fied in the secret, unsearchable counsels of God, 
but he 'went down to his house justified,' with a 
sweet sense of a received forgiveness shed abroad 
upon his heart; for God's justification of the sin- 
ner is indeed a transitive act, and passes from him 
to its object." (Trench.) 

"Be it known unto you therefore, men and 



28 JUSTIFICATION. 

brethren, that through this man is preached unto 
you the forgiveness of sins: and by him all that 
believe are justified from all things, from which 
ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." 
(Acts xiii, 38, 39.) "The apostle thus connects 
'forgiveness of sins' with 'justification,' to show 
that they are identically the same." (Calvin iii, 
12, 22.) Further comment is useless. 

"But to him that worketh not, but believeth 
on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is 
counted for righteousness. Even as David also 
describeth the blessedness of the man, unto 
whom God imputeth righteousness without works, 
saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are for- 
given, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is 
the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." 
(Rom. iv, 5-8.) "The quotation from David, 
introduced by the apostle, by way of illustrating 
his doctrine of the justification of the ungodly, 
by 'counting his faith for righteousness,' shows 
clearly that he considered 'justification' 'the 
imputing of righteousness,' 'the forgiveness of 
iniquities,' the 'covering of sin,' the 'non-im- 
putation of sin, as of the same import ; acts 
substantially equivalent the one to another, 
though under somewhat different views, and 
therefore expressed by terms respectively con- 
vertible, — this variety of phrase being adopted, 



MEANING OF TERMS. 29 

probably, to preserve the idea which runs 
throughout the whole Scripture, that in the re- 
mission or pardon of sin, Almighty God acts in 
his character of Ruler and Judge, showing mercy 
upon terms satisfactory to his justice, when he 
might in rigid justice have punished our trans- 
gressions to the utmost. " (Watson.) ' ' By these 
words Ave are taught that justification with Paul 
is nothing else but pardon of sin." (Calvin; see 
Barnes in loco.) 

The fifth verse forbids any other definition 
of "justify" than that of simple pardon. The 
person or character to be justified is the "un- 
godly;" in the very nature of the case, he can 
not be declared either just or godly, he can only 
be pardoned. It will not mend the matter to 
say that the sinner is invested with "the right- 
eousness of Christ." For if this is imputed to 
him in such a manner as to make him truly 
righteous in God's sight, then he has no need 
for pardon ; if the imputation does not make 
him truly righteous, then he is still "ungodly," 
and can not possibly be pronounced "righteous." 
All that can be done for him (with regard to his 
past sins) is to pardon him, and this pardon the 
apostle calls "justification." 

Having looked at the usage of dtxatoov in the 
preceding texts, and which, though few in num- 



30 JUSTIFICATION. 

ber, are nevertheless a fair index to its usage 
when employed to designate what God does for 
the penitent sinner, let us now examine some 
of the texts in which the noun dcxaioffuvrj, "right- 
eousness" occurs. That bixatoaw^ is often used' 
in the Septuagint to designate that righteous- 
ness, or moral purity, which the Holy Spirit 
works out in man, is cheerfully admitted. But 
it is just as certain that both in the Septua- 
gint and in the New Testament it is used to des- 
ignate, not only the attribute of mercy in God, 
but also the active exhibition of mercy to men 
in the pardon of sins. Let a few instances be 
examined. 

"Thy servant hath found grace in thy sight, 
and thou hast magnified thy mercy which thou 
hast shewed unto me in saving my life." (Gen. 
xix, 19.) The term "mercy" of the text is 
""chesed," in the Hebrew, and duatoGu^v, in the 
Septuagint. In this instance it can not mean 
any declaration of righteousness made concern- 
ing Lot, nor can it mean the attribute of mercy 
in God ; but certainly means the favor or com- 
passion shown to Lot in saving him and his fam- 
ily from the destruction of Sodom. 

"Deliver me from blood-guiltiness, O God, 
thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall 
sing aloud of thy righteousness." (Psalms li, 



MEANING OF TERMS. 3 I 

14.) Here the 'righteousness' of the last clause 
is evidently the pardoning mercy of God, by 
which the writer hoped to escape from his 
"blood-guiltiness." ''The allusion is to the 
guilt of shedding blood, or taking life (Comp. 
Gen. ix, 5, 6), and the reference is undoubtedly 
to his guilt in causing Uriah, the husband of 
Bathsheba, to be slain. (2 Sam. xi, 14-17.) It 
was this which weighed upon his conscience, 
and filled him with alarm. The guilt of this he 
prayed might be taken away, that he might have 
peace. The fact of the shedding of that blood 
could never be changed; the real criminality of 
that fact would always remain the same; the 
crime itself could never be declared to be inno- 
cence; his own personal ill desert for having 
shed that blood would always remain ; but the 
sin might be pardoned, and his soul could thus 
find peace." It is plain that the "righteousness" 
which he would celebrate in song must be related 
to his deliverance from "blood-guiltiness." In 
asking to be delivered from "blood-guiltiness," 
he unquestionably asks for pardon. There would 
be no pertinence in the prayer, "pardon my sin, 
and I will praise thy holiness," or "I will praise^ 
thy justice," or "thy truth." There would be 
no necessary connection or harmony between 
these ideas; but the prayer, "pardon my blood- 



32 JUSTIFICATION. 

guiltiness, and I will sing aloud of thy pardon- 
ing mercy," is harmonious in all its parts. 

"Add iniquity unto their iniquity: and let 
them not come into thy righteousness." (Psalm 
lxix, 27.) It matters not whether we interpret 
the first clause of this text as a prayer that 
these persons be delivered over unto a reprobate 
mind because of their iniquity, or whether we 
adopt the marginal reading of it thus, "Add 
punishment to their iniquity," in either case 
the words "add iniquity," etc., mean punish- 
ment, and from the complement of the last clause 
of the text, the whole verse may be correctly 
paraphrased thus: "Punish their iniquity, and 
grant them no pardon." 

"The Lord hath made known his salvation: 
his righteousness hath he openly shewed in the 
sight of the heathen." (Psalm xcviii, 2.) Here, 
also, "righteousness" is evidently synonymous 
with salvation, or pardoning mercy. "But the 
mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to ever- 
lasting upon them that fear him, and his right- 
eousness unto children's children." "Mine eyes 
fail for thy salvation, and for the word of thy 
righteousness." (Psalms ciii, 17, and cxix, 123.) 
In both of these texts the meaning of ducaioouvq 
is fixed by the preceding terms "mercy" and 
"salvation." "Hear my prayer, O Lord, give 



MEANING OF TERMS. 33 

ear to my supplications: in thy faithfulness an- 
swer me, and in thy righteousness. And enter 
not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy 
sight shall no man living be justified." (Psalm 
cxliii, 1, 2.) The term "righteousness," in the 
first verse, must mean either God's justice as a 
judge, or his pardoning mercy exercised through 
a law of redemption. It can not mean the first, 
for the author deprecates the idea of being tried 
by a law of simple justice, "enter not into judg- 
ment," etc., and pleads that such is the guilt 
of man that none can vindicate himself before 
God; hence, in praying that God would hear in 
"righteousness," he prays not for justice, but 
for mercy. "My righteousness is near: my sal- 
vation is gone forth; . . . my salvation shall 
be forever, and my righteousness shall not be 
abolished. . . . My righteousness shall be 
forever, and my salvation from generation to gen- 
eration." (Isa. li, 5-8.) Here "righteousness" 
and "salvation" are used interchangeably, and 
thus fix the meaning of "righteousness." "For 
therein is the righteousness of God revealed 
from faith to faith: as it is written, The just 
shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is 
revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and 
unrighteousness of men." (Rom. i, 17, 18.) 
Here "righteousness," or pardon of sin, is put 
3 



34 JUSTIFICATION. 

in antithesis with the "wrath," or punishment 
to be inflicted, thus showing clearly its na- 
ture as pardon. "Them that have obtained like 
precious faith with us, through the righteousness 
of God." (2 Peter, i, I.) "How does it appear 
that 'the righteousness of God' here means any 
thing more or less than his mercy?" (Wesley.) 

Dr. Alexander Hodge states the distinction 
between pardon and justification thus: "The es- 
sence of pardon is that a man is forgiven with- 
out righteousness. The essence of justification 
is pronounced to be possessed of a righteousness 
which fulfills the law." After the foregoing ex- 
amination of the terms justify and justification, 
we feel compelled to modify his statement thus: 
"The essence of pardon is that a man is forgiven 
without righteousness. The essence of the justi- 
fication of a sinner is that a man without right- 
eousness is forgiven and dealt with as though he 
had not sinned, because Christ had borne the 
penalty for him, and thus enabled God to be 
just and yet the justifier of those who believe in 
Christ." 

Dr. Charles Hodge objects to the defining of 
justification as simple pardon, that "' Being jus- 
tified by faith,' says the apostle, 'we have peace 
with God.' (Rom. v, 1.) Rut pardon does not 
produce peace. It leaves the conscience unsat- 



MEANING OF TERMS. 35 

isfied. A pardoned criminal is not only just as 
much a criminal as he was before, but his sense 
of guilt and remorse are in no degree lessened. 
Pardon can remove only the outward and arbi- 
trary penalty. The sting of sin remains. There 
can be no satisfaction of the mind until there is 
a satisfaction of justice. Justification secures 
peace not merely because it includes pardon, but 
because that pardon is dispensed on the ground 
of a full satisfaction of justice." (TheoL, Vol. Ill, 
p. 128.) The error in the foregoing reasoning 
is that of limiting the efficiency of the divine 
pardon to the defective power of pardon by a 
merely human ruler. The human pardon can 
only affect the external relations of the man, it 
can not affect the condition of the soul. Surely 
this is not true of the divine pardon. Dr. 
Hodge argues that pardon can not deliver from 
remorse, but that an imputation of righteousness 
can. It is not easy to understand how the im- 
putation of righteousness to a criminal can re- 
lieve him from remorse of conscience. A man 
is guilty of murder, and has remorse of con- 
science. Now, no matter how perfect the right- 
eousness with which he is invested, it can not 
take away the sense of condemnation, which is 
the very essence of remorse. If all the right- 
eousness of Christ were imputed to him, still he 



2,6 JUSTIFICATION. 

is a murderer, and feels condemned. Remorse 
of conscience has reference to past sins, and no 
present righteousness imputed to the sinner can 
take away from him the shame and distress con- 
nected with his past offense. On the other hand, 
it is equally evident that the divine pardon can 
take that remorse away and give peace. The 
divine pardon remits all the penalty of sin. Re- 
morse of conscience is part of that penalty, and 
is taken away when the man is pardoned. Re- 
morse being gone, the pardoned man has peace. 
Justification gives peace, so does pardon, hence 
pardon and justification are synonymous terms. 



II. 



THE DOCTRINE OF THE PUNISHMENT OF SIN, 
AND OF THE FORGIVENESS OF SIN, AS 
HELD BY UNITARIANS AND UNIVERSAL- 
ISTS. 

HAVING shown that the justification of a 
penitent believer is simply the forgiveness 
of his sins, it becomes necessary now to examine 
the notion of forgiveness held by Unitarians and 
Universalists. These two sects deny that there 
is in forgiveness any remission of a judicial pen- 
alty. According to their theory, justification 
does not consist in remitting the penalty, but in 
taking away the propensity to sin. It furnishes 
no relief for past sin, but simply saves in the fu- 
ture. In order to sustain this notion they are 
forced to deny the existence of any punishment 
of sin, except such consequences as naturally re- 
sult from the sinful action. Let us hear their 
own statement of the notion. Our first quotation 
will be from J. F. Clarke: "It would seem, at 
first sight, that the Deity can not be expected to 
forgive the sinner in either of these ways. Not 
by ceasing to be angry, for he never was angry ; 

37 



38 JUSTIFICATION. 

not by remitting the penalty, for the penalty is 
not an arbitral}' infliction, but the natural and 
necessary consequence of the offense. When 
God is said to be angry, when his wrath is 
spoken of, whatever it means it can not mean 
any thing like human passion. Such passion is 
inconsistent with the essential attributes of Deity, 
for it implies weakness, suffering, and selfish irri- 
tation." "If, then, forgiveness, means either 
the cessation of God's holy indignation against 
sin, or the remission of the penalty of sin which 
is its natural attendant, it would seem that the 
one kind of forgiveness is forbidden by the nature 
of God and the other by the nature of man, and 
that, therefore, forgiveness of sin is an impossi- 
bility." Before adducing further quotations, we 
will stop and make a few reflections. 

Mr. Clarke says that God " never was angry." 
This assertion unblushingly contradicts a host of 
Scripture texts. Thus: "The Lord was very 
angry with Israel." (2 Kings, xvii, 18.) We are 
warned to "kiss the Son lest he be angry." 
(Psalm ii, 12.) " God is angry with the wicked 
every day." "The anger of the Lord is fierce." 
That "he will execute his vengeance in anger." 
(Num. v, 24; Micah v, 15.) A host of similar 
texts might be quoted, but these are sufficient 
for the purpose. Let any person desirous of 






PUNISHMENT AND FORGIVENESS. 39 

investigating this subject more thoroughly take 
Cruden's Concordance, and turn to the words 
''anger," "hate," and "vengeance," and their 
modifications, and he will be astonished to see 
the prominence which the Bible gives to this 
subject. "Anger is not evil per se. The mind 
is formed to be angry as well as to love. Both 
are original susceptibilities of our nature. If 
anger were in itself sinful, how could God him- 
self be angry? How could he, who was separate 
from sin and sinners, have looked around upon 
men with anger? An essentially immoral char- 
acter can not attach to it if it be the mere emo- 
tion of displeasure on the infliction of any evil 
upon us. Anger may be sinful when it arises 
too soon without reflection ; when the injury 
which awakens it is only apparent and was de- 
signed to do good. The disposition which be- 
comes speedily angry we call passionate. When 
it is disproportionate to the offense ; when it is 
transferred from the guilty to the innocent; when 
it is too long protracted, it then becomes re- 
vengeful. (Eph. iv. 26; Matt. v. 22; Col. hi, 8.) 
When anger, hatred, wrath are ascribed to God 
they denote his holy and just displeasure with 
sin and sinners. In him they are principles 
arising out of his holy and just nature, and are, 
therefore, steady and uniform, and more terrible 



40 JUSTIFICATION. 

than if mere emotions or passions." (M'Clintock 
and Strong.) To this I add the following from 
Knapp : "There may be a righteous anger, as is 
often said in common life, when one expresses his 
deep and lively displeasure in such a way as to be 
perfectly conformable to the subject, the end, and 
the circumstances. Nor can a good moral being 
exist, or even be conceived to exist, without such 
anger. God, as the most perfect and holy moral 
being, has certainly the greatest displeasure 
against sin ; and as he is the supreme moral Gov- 
ernor of the world, he expresses it in a very im- 
pressive manner. He, therefore, is said to burn 
with anger, but his anger is always just." 

Mr. Clarke insists upon it that anger in God 
"can not mean anything like human passion." 
Why not? If God's anger is not like" human 
passion, then we can not have any proper con- 
ception of the meaning of the term when applied 
to him, and God's effort to reveal his nature to 
us is a failure. But we will proceed to further 
quotations : ' ' The New Testament plainly teaches 
a fixed and certain retribution for all — penitent 
and impenitent, believers and unbelievers, those 
who are forgiven and those who are not. We 
read that 'we shall all stand before the judgment 
seat of Christ, that every one may receive the 
things done in his body, according to that he 



PUNISHMENT AND FORGIVENESS. 4 1 

hath done, whether it be good or bad.' (2 Cor. 
v, 10; Rom. xiv, 10-12.) We read that God 
' will render to every man according to his deeds,' 
and that 'every one of us shall give an account 
of himself to God.' We are also taught in one 
parable (Luk'e xix, 13) the principle of retribu- 
tion, and in another (Matt, xxv, 14) the principle 
of accountability. According to the first, we are 
rewarded hereafter according to the exact degree 
in which we have improved the talents, means, 
opportunities, faculties, of which we are the 
stewards ; according to the other, we are to ac- 
count according to the different amount and 
quality of these talents. To whom much has 
been given, of him much will be required. This 
retribution is not arbitrary, but is compared to 
the most certain and inflexible operations of 
nature. ' Be not deceived ; God is not mocked: 
whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. 
He who soweth to the flesh shall of the flesh reap 
corruption ; but he that soweth to the Spirit, from 
the Spirit shall reap eternal life.' (Gal. vi, 8.) In 
the Book of Revelation (xx, 12, 13) we read that 
the books were opened and every man judged 
out of the things written in the books, according 
to their works. It seems, therefore, that Scrip- 
ture plainly teaches what we have already seen 
to be reasonable — that every action, good or 



42 JUSTIFICATION. 

evil, brings after it an inevitable consequence. 
The consequence in the one case is eternal life; 
that is, as I suppose, an elevation and strengthen- 
ing of the immortal principle. The good action 
reacts upon the character by a fixed law to make 
it better. It brings an access of faith and love 
which qualifies us for higher action and deeper 
enjoyment. We 'sow to the Spirit, and of the 
Spirit reap ' spiritual or eternal life. The conse- 
quence in the other case is as unerring. The bad 
action also reacts upon the character. He who 
sows to the flesh reaps corruption. Every higher 
faculty decays; the power of insight is dulled; 
love is frozen in the heart ; faith in God, in things 
unseen, in universal ideas, in the right, the good, 
the beautiful, dies out of the soul. The retribu- 
tion is sure and certain — certain as the law of 
gravitation. Forgiveness can not remit this pen- 
alty, for what remission of penalty will change 
the character?" "They have taught that re- 
pentance and faith in the atoning sacrifice of 
Christ will, at any time, procure for sinner or 
saint, a forgiveness which obliterates all the pen- 
alties of evil-doing. But such a forgiveness as 
this is evidently inconsistent with retribution, 
and the effect of such a view is dangerous- and 
pernicious." (Forgiveness of Sin, pp. 22, 23, 
27-30, 35-) 



PUNISHMENT AND FORGIVENESS. 43 

Mr. Clarke's reference in this last quotation to 
the two parables, in Luke xix, 13, and Matt, xxv, 
14, is most unfortunate for his theory. Turn and 
read the two passages, and then note the follow- 
ing- points: 1st. The reward of the faithful serv- 
ants is no natural result or consequence of their 
conduct, but arises directly from the sovereign 
will and pleasure of the masters. 2d. The pun- 
ishment of the unfaithful servants has no natural 
connection with their offenses, but is caused by 
the will and determination of the angry masters. 
"Weeping and gnashing of teeth" in "outer 
darkness" is surely no "natural result" of un- 
faithful stewardship. 3d. Is it "certain as the 
laws of gravitation " that the enemies of kings 
will all be slain? (Luke xix, 27.) Is death the 
"inevitable consequence" of such an act, accord- 
ing to the " most certain and inflexible operations 
of nature?" 

We will next quote from Dr. Thayer: 
"The Scriptural doctrine of forgiveness is not 
remission of punishment, but of the sin which 
brings punishment. We are punished for sins 
already committed, but are forgiven the evil heart, 
the wicked passions Avhich lead to the commission 
of them." "The simple meaning, therefore, of 
the term 'forgiveness,' is putting or sending 
away, removal or deliverance from ; and ' for- 



44 JUSTIFICATION. 

giveness of sins ' is removal of sin or deliverance 
from sin. From this point the subject becomes 
intelligible. The sin is punished and forgiven ; 
the penalty of transgression is inflicted; and then 
the sinner is forgiven or delivered from his sinful 
course — his evil heart of wickedness. And the 
very punishment itself is conducive to this for- 
giveness, or this putting away of sin. Subdued 
and humbled by the just judgment of God, he re- 
flects upon his ways, is brought to repentance, 
abandons his wicked life, and thus his sins are 
dismissed, put away, forgiven; he is set at 
liberty, or delivered from them; 'or, in other 
words, he is saved — not from punishment, but 
from sin." ''No repentance can save from the 
just penalty of the violated law. The hand thrust 
into the fire is burned, and no regret, no sorrow 
however sincere, can save from the pain ; but it 
may save from a repetition of the act, and so save 
from a repetition of the pain. The repentance 
of the drunkard does not save him from the past 
shame and degradation and torment of his trans- 
gressions ; he has not been a drunkard all these 
years without suffering the loss of honor and 
place, of the respect of his neighbors, of his own 
respect, without humiliation, disgrace, and re- 
morse. He can not be forgiven these, but his 
repentance will save him from the sin of drunken- 



PUNISHMENT AND FORGINENESS. 45 

ness, and thus, the sin being forgiven, from a con- 
tinuation of the punishment." (Thayer's Theol. 
Universal., pp. 315-318.) 

It would seem to be almost a work of super- 
erogation to point out the fallacy of the foregoing 
reasoning. The pain in the burned hand is just 
as great to the innocent party, where the burning 
is purely accidental, as it is to the guilty one, 
whose burning is the punishment of crime. Ac- 
cording to this theory, the righteous person who 
takes unintentionally a portion of arsenic, mistak- 
ing it for some other medicine, is just as certainly 
punished as the guilty wretch who takes it for the 
purpose of self-murder. Dr. Thayer's illustra- 
tions are faulty in another respect. They are 
based on a supposition that a discontinuance of 
the sin will effect a discontinuance of the punish- 
ment. But this is not true. Murder once com- 
mitted fills the soul with remorse, and no future 
abstaining from murder will take that remorse 
away. A man by drunkenness and debauchery 
has subjected himself to a loathsome disease, 
and the discontinuance of the sins will not heal., 
his body. It requires something more than the 
taking away of sin to deliver man from either the 
consequences or penalties of past sin. But we 
will proceed with our quotations: "We also re- 
ject the opinion that forgiveness is the remission 



46 _ JUSTIFICATION. 

of punishment. The consequences of sin, as 
they are meted out under the divine government, 
are not arbitrary inflictions, but the natural re- 
sults of fixed and uniform laws operating in every 
department of our being. These laws, being per- 
fectly wise, just, and beneficent, can not be set 
aside in their operations; they are immutable as 
the principles that govern the material universe." 
(Universalist Quarterly, 1866, page 332.) We will 
add yet two other quotations : "And so it is, that 
in the divine government punishment is not arbi- 
trary, or something that comes apart from, or 
over and above, the legitimate consequences in- 
volved in the act of transgression; but it flows 
out from the nature and condition of things as 
God has made them, on the principle that 'what- 
soever a man sows that shall he also reap.' " 
" We have before seen that the pain or suffering 
that ensues from the violation of the laws of na- 
ture is incurred in and by, rather than for, the act 
of transgression. It is obvious, at first thought, 
that the nature and character of the punishment in 
any given instance depends always upon the na- 
ture and character of the law that is violated." 
(Williamson's Theol. and Moral Science, pp. 260, 

263.) 

Quotations similar to the foregoing might 
easily be multiplied; but these are sufficient to 



PUNISHMENT AND FORGIVENESS. 47 

represent fairly the views of the parties making 
them. These quotations set forth the follow- 
ing" points : 1st. That there is no judicial punish- 
ment of sin ; the only punishment being the 
natural consequences of the sinful act. 2d. That 
in the forgiveness of sin there is no remission of 
the penalty. In opposition to these two points 
we will endeavor to prove, 1st. That distinct 
from, and in addition to, the natural consequence 
of the sinful act, there is a judicial punishment of 
sin; and, 2d. When sin is pardoned there is a 
remission of this punishment. 

This notion that there is no punishment of 
sin other than the natural consequence of the sin- 
ful act is part of that system of skepticism which 
at the present day seeks to create a conflict be- 
tween the doctrines of Christianity and the uni- 
formity of natural laws. This system of infidelity 
in its later developments belongs to Germany, but 
perhaps is best known to American and English 
readers as it is served out by Huxley, Tyndall, 
and other kindred spirits. An outline statement 
of the theory is thus made by Dr. Hodge : 

"Others, again, while they admit personality 
in God, make it a personality which precludes 
all willing and all acting, except in the form of 
law or general efficiency. Justice in God, there- 
fore, is only a name for one form, or one mode, 



48 JUSTIFICATION. 

of the manifestation of the power of God. As 
it is to be referred to his ordination, or to his 
nature, that fire burns and acids corrode, so it is 
to be referred to his general efficiency that sin 
produces misery. There is no special interven- 
tion of God when fire burns, and there is no 
special decision or judgment on his part when a 
sinner is punished. Punishment is not the execu- 
tion of a sentence pronounced by an intelligent 
being on the merits of the case, but the opera- 
tion of a general law. Bruch, Professor of The- 
ology in the Theological Seminary in Strasburg, 
is a representative of this mode of thinking. 
He professes Theism, or faith in a personal 
God-, but he teaches that the attributes- of God 
are nothing else 'than modes of his constant 
efficiency. ' Since among men justice is exer- 
cised in a succession of special acts, it is errone- 
ously inferred that there is a like succession of 
acts of the will of God by which he approves 
or condemns. The great difficulty, he says, 
arises from judging of God after the analogy of 
our own nature. He admits that the Bible does 
this ; that it constantly speaks of God as a right- 
eous judge, administering justice according to 
his will. In this case, however, he adds, it is 
important to separate real truth from the imper- 
fection of its Scriptural form. Penalties are not 



PUNISHMENT AND FORGIVENESS. 49 

evils inflicted by a special act of the divine will, 
but the natural consequences of sin, which can 
not fail to manifest themselves. There is an 
organic connection between sin and evil. All the 
activity or agency of G'od is in form of laws 
having their foundation in his nature. Thus, 
justice is simply that law, or uniform mode of 
divine operation, by which sin is made its own 
punishment. Hence there is no distinction be- 
tween natural and positive inflictions ; the deluge 
was either no punishment, or it was the natural 
consequence of the sins of the antediluvians. 
Hence, there is no such thing as forgiveness. 
The only possible way to remove the suffering is 
to remove the sin. But how is the sin of theft 
or murder to be removed? We can understand 
how pride or envy may be subdued and the suf- 
fering they occasion be escaped, but how can a 
past act be removed? A man hardened in sin 
suffers little or nothing for a special offense; the 
morally refined suffer indescribably. Thus, ac- 
cording to this theory, the better a man is, 
the more severely he is punished for his sin." 
(Theology, Vol. I, pp. 425, 426.) 

But let us proceed to the examination of the 
first proposition: "That there is no judicial pun- 
ishment of sin; the only punishment being the 
natural consequence of the sinful act." We 
4 



50 JUSTIFICATION. 

will examine his proposition in connection with 
its opposite; namely, "That distinct from, and 
in addition to, the natural consequences of the 
sinful act, there is a judicial punishment of sin." 
It is cheerfully admitted, that to every trans- 
gression of the moral law of God there are cer- 
tain natural consequences of a painful nature. 
Thus it is written, sin is "a root that beareth 
gall and wormwood." (Deut. xxix, 18.) "They 
that plow iniquity and sow wickedness, reap the 
same." (Job iv, 8.) "His bones are full of the 
sin of his youth, which shall lie down with him 
in the dust." (Job xx, n.) "Therefore shall 
they eat of the fruit of their own way." (Prov. 
i, 31.) "He that soweth iniquity shall reap 
vanity." (Prov. xxii, 8.) "Every man that 
eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on 
edge." (J er - xxxi, 30.) "Ye have eaten the 
fruit of lies." (Hosea x, 13.) "When we were 
in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by 
the law, did work in our members to bring forth 
fruit unto death. (Rom. vii, 5.) "He that 
soweth to his flesh, shall of the flesh reap cor- 
ruption." (Gal. vi, 8.) But these fruits, or con- 
sequences of sin, do not constitute its penalty. 
One consideration which would go far toward 
proving this is, that a large part of the painful 
consequences of many actions are felt by those 



PUNISHMENT AND FORGIVENESS. 5 I 

innocent of the sin. Thus, a man murders an- 
other, and a large share of the consequences of 
this crime fall upon the guiltless. The State 
loses a citizen, the feelings of society are out- 
raged, a wife and children lose their natural pro- 
tector. All these parties are innocent, and yet 
share most deeply and painfully the consequen- 
ces of the crime; surely they are not suffering 
the penalty of murder. The Bible speaks of 
penalties which are not the natural result or con- 
sequences of the sin, but which come direct from 
God. Consider the following texts: "Whoso- 
soever hath sinned against me, him will I blot 
out of my book." (Ex. xxxii, 33.) "I will 
bring seven times more plagues upon you accord- 
ing to your sins." (Lev. xxvi, 21.) In these 
two texts, the punishments threatened are not 
traceable to the action of any violated law; but 
they are to be referred directly to the volition of 
Almighty God, as an expression of his anger at 
their sins. 

"That soul shall utterly be cut off, his iniquity 
shall be upon him." (Num. xv, 31.) "Saul died 
for his transgression which he committed against 
the Lord." (1 Chron. x, 13.) "I will do a 
thing in Israel, at which both the ears of every one 
that heareth it shall tingle." (1 Sam. iii, 11.) 
"Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and 



52 JUSTIFICATION. 

brimstone, and an horrible tempest: this shall be 
the portion of their cup." (Psalm xi, 6.) It is 
of no avail to plead that this language is figura- 
tive; be it figurative or literal, it clearly sets 
forth a punishment for sin which could not be 
the mere natural consequence of that sin. "In 
the hand of the Lord there is a cup, and the wine 
is red; it is full of mixture; and he poureth out 
of the same: but the dregs thereof, all the wicked 
of the earth shall wring them out, and drink 
them." (Psalm lxxv, 8.) "He cast upon them 
the fierceness of his anger, wrath, and indig- 
nation, and trouble, by sending evil angels among 
them. (Psalm lxxviii, 49.) "I will visit their 
transgression with the rod, and their iniqu- 
ities with stripes." (Psalm lxxxix, 32.) "God 
overthroweth the wicked for their wickedness." 
(Prov. xxi, 12.) "The candle of the wicked 
shall be put out." (Prov. xxiv, 20.) "I will 
ease me of mine adversaries, and avenge me of 
mine enemies." "They that forsake the Lord 
slrall be consumed." (Isa. i, 24, 28.) "They shall 
be driven to darkness." "With the breath of 
his lips shall he slay the wicked." "The Lord 
cometh out of his place to punish the inhabitants 
of the earth for their iniquity." (Isa. viii, 22; 
xi, 4; xxvi, 21.) "I will cause my fury to rest 
upon them." (Ezek. v, 13.) " Every tree which 



PUNISHMENT AND FORGIVENESS. 53 

bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and 
cast into the fire." (Matt, iii, 10.) "Depart 
from me, ye that work iniquity." (Matt, vii, 
23.) "Woe to that man by whom the offense 
cometh." "Shall cut him asunder, and appoint 
him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be 
weeping and gnashing of teeth." "These shall 
go away into everlasting punishment." "If any 
man defile the temple of God, him shall God 
destroy." (Matt, xviii, 7; xxiv, 51; xxv, 46; 
1 Cor. 3, 17.) If these texts do not teach a 
punishment of sin by the direct act of Al- 
mighty God, then it is difficult to see how such 
a doctrine could be taught. But let us test this 
notion (that punishment is simply the natural re- 
sult of sin) by some of the well-known instances 
of punishment. Was the deluge "an inevitable 
consequence" of the sins of the antediluvians, 
according to the "most certain and inflexible 
operations of nature?" Will Messrs. Thayer, 
Clarke, and Williamson tell us what kind of sins 
it is that produces deluges? Or is this one of 
the lost arts? Soberly. Was not the deluge a 
punishment of sin, originating in the will of God? 
"The Lord rained upon Sodom and upon 
Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out 
of heaven." (Gen. xix, 24.) God assesses this 
punishment upon them because their sin was 



54 JUSTIFICATION. 

"very grievous." (Gen. xviii, 20.) It is dis- 
tinctly called "the punishment of the sin of 
Sodom." (Lam. iv, 6.) Peter speaks of it as God's 
condemnation of these cities. Jude calls it the 
"vengeance" of God. Surely the most fertile im- 
agination can not confound this act of divine pun- 
ishment with the natural sequences of the crimes of 
the Sodomites. Like causes produce like effects; 
and if this punishment was the natural conse- 
quence of their sin, how is it that we have no 
instances in the present age of crime bringing 
"brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven " 
upon the heads of the guilty criminals? This 
was a fearful act of retribution coming direct 
from "the Judge of all the earth." Was the 
opening of the earth and the swallowing up of 
Korah, Dathan, and Abiram the natural result of 
their action? These men had rebelled against 
the divinely constituted government of the 
Church. Was the yawning of the earth and the 
swallowing up of those guilty t)f this sin one of 
those "most certain and inflexible operations of 
nature?" Is this peculiar sin followed by this 
terrible retribution "as certain as the law of 
gravitation?" Did Nadab and Abihu offering 
strange fire cause the fire naturally to shoot out 
and consume them? Or was it not the venge* 
ance of the Almighty? Uzziah invaded the 



PUNISHMENT AND FORGIVENESS. 55 

rights and duties of the priesthood, and was 
smitten with leprosy. Is such a sin the natural 
cause of leprosy? Gehazi was smitten with lep- 
rosy for covetousness and lying. Is leprosy the 
natural result of covetousness and lying according 
to "the most certain and inflexible operations of 
nature?" If so, why is it of so rare occurrence 
.in this age of the world? Herod was eaten up 
of worms. Was this a natural result of his refus- 
ing to give proper glory to God? Are we not 
explicitly told that the angel of the Lord smote 
him? (Acts xii, 20-23.) Elymas, the sorcerer, 
was struck with physical blindness. Was this 
the natural result of his opposition to the apos- 
tle? Was the death of Ananias and Sapphira 
the natural result of their lying? This sin does 
not seem to affect people in this manner now. 
Is expulsion into outer darkness, with weeping 
and gnashing of teeth, the natural result of re- 
jecting Christ? Is a portion in the lake which 
burneth with fire and brimstone the natural re- 
sult of unbelief? Is the Anathema Maranatha 
the natural consequence of a failure to love 
Christ? Is the everlasting destruction from the 
presence of the Lord and from the glory of his 
power the natural result of not knowing the 
Lord? Is it necessary to add any further proof 
of the absurdity and falsity of the notion that 



$6 JUSTIFICATION. 

there is no punishment of sin, except the natural 
consequences of the sinful act? The conse- 
quences of sin are ruinous to the last degree; 
but over and above these, there is the direct 
punishment threatened by the law of God. 

To this array of testimony Dr. Williamson re- 
plies that many of these cases occur under the 
"civil and municipal law of Israel," and that 
others of them grew "out of peculiar circum- 
stances" and were "intended as temporary ex- 
pedients." But this does not affect the question 
at issue. Suppose that we grant the truth of Dr. 
Williamson's statements (although they are far 
from being true), still the cases referred to are 
instances of the punishment of sin which have 
either taken place or have been threatened by the 
Almighty. They are cases in which the punish- 
ment was not the natural consequence of the 
broken law, but was a direct visitation from the 
Almighty. 

A reference to some of the passages which 
have been examined — such as Psa. xi, 6 ; lxxv, 
8; Prov. xxi, 12; xxiv, 20; Isa. i, 20, 28; viii, 
22; xi, 4; xxvi, 31; Matt, iii, 10; xviii, 17; 
1 Cor. iii, 17; xvi, 22 — will show that the pun- 
ishments referred to in those texts did not take 
place under any civil law of Israel, nor were they 
mere temporary expedients ; but that they were 



PUNISHMENT AND FORGIVENESS. 57 

dread punishments of sin, caused by a special 
volition of God. 

We are now ready to examine the second prop- 
osition, namely, "that in the forgiveness of sins 
there is no remission of the penalty." Before 
bringing up proof of the falsity of the proposi- 
tion, let us spend a little while in the examination 
of those arguments and texts usually adduced in 
its support. I will examine those texts quoted 
on this subject by Mr. Thayer in his "Theology 
of Universalism." Mr. Thayer quotes several 
passages which speak of the forgiveness of sin, 
and introduces them with the remark that "for- 
giveness, as taught in the Bible, is forgiveness of 
sin, never of the punishment of sin." This dis- 
tinction is strained and unnatural. The phrases 
"forgiveness of sin," and "forgiveness of the 
penalty," and "forgiveness of the punish- 
ment of sin," are all of synonymous import. 
The terms forgive and pardon are thus defined 
by Webster: 

"Forgive — 1. To give away; to make over; to resign. 
( Obs. and rare.) 

2. To give up resentment or claim to requittal on account 
of, as an offense or wrong ; to cease to impute ; to re- 
mit ; to pardon ; said in reference to the act forgiven. 

'I forgive and quite forget old faults.' — Shakespeare. 
'He forgave injuries so readily that he might be said to 
invite them. ' — Macaulay. 



58 JUSTIFICATION. 

3. To cease to feel resentment against on account of wrong 
committed ; to give up claim to requital from, as an 
offender ; to absolve ; to pardon ; said of the person 
offending. 

'I forgive you as I would be forgiven.' 1 — Shak." 

" Pardon — 1. To remit as the consequences of a fault or 
a crime ; to refrain from exacting as a penally. 
'I pardon ihee thy life before thou ask it.' — Shak. 

2. To remit the penalty of; to suffer to pass without pun- 
ishment; applied to the offense and the offender; to 
discharge from liability to reproof or penalty ; to for- 
give ; applied to offenses. 

'I pray thee, pardon my sin.' — 1 Sam. xv, 25." 

These terms are defined by Crabbe in his work 
on Synonyms, thus: "Both signify not to give 
the punishment that is due ; to relax from the 
rigor of justice in demanding retribution." . . . 
" God forgives the sins of his creatures as a father 
pitying his children ; he pardons their sins as a 
judge extending mercy to criminals as far as is 
consistent with justice. " . . . "The pardon 
of sin obliterates that which is past and re- 
stores the sinner to the divine favor. It is prom- 
ised throughout the Scripture to all men on the 
condition of faith and repentance." 

In support of the notion that forgiveness does 
not secure the remission of the penalty, Thayer 
quotes: "The Lord God, merciful and gracious, 
longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and 



PUNISHMENT AND FORGIVENESS. 59 

truth, keeping mere} 7 for thousands, forgiving in- 
iquity and transgression and sin, and that will by 
no means clear the guilty." (Ex. xxxiv, 6, 7.) 
On this text he makes the following comment: 
"Nothing can be more directly to the point than 
this declaration that the guilty are both punished 
and forgiven; that it is iniquity, transgression, 
and sin which are forgiven, and not the conse- 
quences or penalty of these." In this comment 
there is the same confounding of the natural con- 
sequence with the penalty which has been previ- 
ously pointed out. The clause, " and that will by 
no means clear the guilty," is one which all com- 
mentators and critics know to be obscure and dif- 
ficult of exegesis. In the first place, the word 
"guilty" is not in the text in the original. A 
literal translation of the Hebrew is, "Clearing, he 
will not clear." Perhaps Bush has cast as much 
light upon this text as any other writer. He 
says: "This is a clause of exceedingly difficult 
interpretation, as will be evident from the diver- 
sity of ancient renderings which we give before 
attempting to settle the genuine sense: C/ia/., 
* Sparing those who are converted to his law, and 
not justifying those who are not converted.' Gr., 
'And will not purify the guilty.' Arab., 'Who 
justifies and is not justified.' Sam., ' With whom 
the innocent shall [not?] be innocent.' Vztlg., 



60 JUSTIFICATION. 

'And no person is innocent by or of himself be- 
fore thee,' which gives a sound theological sense, 
namely, that no man can make an atonement for 
his own sins, or purify his own heart, inasmuch 
as all have sinned and come short of the glory of 
God. But whether this is the idea intended 
to be conveyed in this passage is another ques- 
tion." . . . " From comparing this form of ex- 
pression with the iisus loqnendi in other cases, we 
are satisfied that the true rendering is, 'who will 
not wholly, entirely, altogether clear ;' that is, who, 
although merciful and gracious in his dispositions, 
strongly inclined to forgive, and actually forgiv- 
ing in countless cases and abundant measure, is 
not yet unmindful of the claims of justice. He 
will not always suffer even the pardoned sinner to 
escape with entire impunity. He will mingle so 
much of the penal in his dealings as to evince 
that his clemency is not to be presumed upon." 
A similar exegesis is given by Gesenius in his 
Hebrew Lexicon (p. 692) thus: "Who forgiveth 
iniquity and transgression and sin, but will by no 
means always leave unpunished." The doctrine 
of the text is not that the penalty is not remitted 
in forgiveness, but that w r hile God in mercy re- 
mits the penalty of eternal death, he still admin- 
isters such disciplinary chastisements as he sees 
necessary for the salvation of the soul. 



PUNISHMENT AND FORGINENESS. 6 1 

The next text quoted by Mr. Thayer is Isa. 
xl, 2: "Her iniquity is pardoned; for she hath 
received of the Lord's hand double for all her 
sins." A close examination of this text will 
show that it has no connection with the subject- 
matter under discussion. In the first place it has 
no reference to either the punishment or pardon 
of the sins of individual persons, but to the city of 
Jerusalem as a body politic. In the second place, 
the text has no reference to the forgiveness of 
sins. The term "nirtza " does not properly mean 
pardon; it here means " expiated." Barnes com- 
ments thus: "Here it means not strictly to par- 
don, but it means they had endured the national 
punishment which God saw to be necessary ; 
they had served out the long and painful enlist- 
ment which he had appointed, and now he was 
satisfied and took delight in restoring them to 
their own land." Dr. Alexander comments in a 
similar strain. In the third place, we do not 
think the clause, "hath received of the Lord's 
hand double for all her sins, " has any reference 
to the amount of punishment received, nor even 
to punishment at all. We will give Lowth's 
translation of the text and his note upon it: 
"The expiation of her iniquity is accepted; that 
she shall receive at the hand of Jehovah (bless- 
ings) double to the punishment of all her sins." 



62 JUSTIFICATION. 

" It does not seem reconcilable to our notions 
of the divine justice, which always punishes less 
than our iniquities deserve, to suppose that God 
had punished the sins of the Jews in double pro- 
portion ; and it is more agreeable to the tenor of 
this consolatory message to understand it as a 
promise of ample recompense for the effects of 
the past displeasure on the reconciliation of God 
to his returning- people. To express this sense 
of the passage — which the words of the original 
will very well bear — it was necessary to add a 
word or two in the version to supply the elliptical 
expression of the Hebrew." 

Let us now proceed to the examination of 
some texts which prove that "in the forgiveness 
of sins there is a gracious remission of the 
penalty." 

"Thou art a God ready to pardon, gracious 
and merciful, slow to anger and of great kind- 
ness, and forsookest them not." "Nevertheless 
for thy great mercies' sake thou didst not utterly 
consume them, nor forsake them ; for thou art a 
gracious and merciful God." (Neh. ix, 17, 31.) 
Here the term "pardon" is supplemented 
and explained by the words "gracious" and 
" merciful." Let us examine these words separa- 
rately. fst. "Gracious." Webster defines it, 
"Abounding in grace or mercy; kind to the ill- 



PUNISHMENT AND FORGIVENESS. 63 

deserving." This definition of the term is well 
suited to the context. The prophet had just 
spoken of their forefathers as dealing proudly, re- 
fusing to obey, and hardening their necks; and 
the only reason why God did not punish them 
was that he abounded in grace and was kind to 
the ill deserving. God was free to deal with their 
rebellious fathers in either of two ways. He 
could punish them by forsaking them and de- 
stroying them ; but as he was a God ' ' ready to 
pardon, gracious," he forgave them by remitting 
these penalties. 2d. "Merciful." Webster de- 
fines it, "Full of mercy; having- or exercising 
mercy ; disposed to pity offenders and forgive 
their offenses; unwilling to punish for injuries." 
Crabbe, in his Synonyms, says : "God is merci- 
ful to the vilest of sinners, and lends an ear to the 
smallest breath of repentance. In the moment 
of executing vengeance he stops his arm at the 
voice of supplication." God's readiness to par- 
don was associated with an unwillingness to pun- 
ish injuries and a willingness to overlook them. 
It was identical with a readiness or disposition to 
remit the punishment of their sins. Because of 
this he did pardon them, and the penalty of their 
sins (their being forsaken and destroyed) was 
remitted. This conclusion is corroborated by 
the statement that he is "slow to angfer." We 



64 JUSTIFICATION. 

have already seen, in a preceding part of this in- 
vestigation, that God's anger is his displeasure at 
sin; and that the term "anger" often designates 
the punishment which he visits upon sin. It fol- 
lows, then, that his slowness to anger is an un- 
willingness to punish sin ; hence his readiness to 
pardon is his willingness to remit the punishment 
of sin. 

"But he, being full of compassion, forgave 
their iniquity and destroyed them not ; yea, many 
a time turned he his anger away, and did not stir 
up all his wrath." (Psalm lxxviii, 38.) Here the 
following items present themselves: 1st. God's 
compassion. 2d. This compassion moves him to 
forgive the iniquity of the people. 3d. Because 
he forgave them they were not punished with de- 
struction. 4th. The thought is intensified ; many 
a time he turned his anger, or meditated punish- 
ment, away. The great difficulty in commenting 
on these texts lies in the impossibility of distin- 
guishing between the "pardon of sin " and the 
"remission of the punishment," the two phrases 
meaning one and the same thing. 1 Kings 
viii, 34: "Forgive the sin of thy people Israel, 
and bring them again unto the land which thou 
gavest unto their fathers." Banishment from their 
native land was the punishment of their sins, and 
their pardon consisted in their restoration from 



PUNISHMENT AND FORGIVENESS. 65 

banishment. Lamentations iii, 42, 43 : " We 
have transgressed and have rebelled ; thou hast 
not pardoned. Thou hast covered with anger 
and persecuted us ; thou hast slain, thou hast not 
pitied." Here the being covered with his anger, 
being persecuted, and being slain, are set forth as 
the punishment of their sins, and as being suf- 
fered by them because God refused to forgive 
them, clearly teaching that if God had forgiven 
them they would have been spared the suffering 
of the penalty. The verb rendered "pardon " in 
the preceding passages is rendered "spare" in 
Deut. xxix, 20: "The Lord will not spare him, 
but then the anger of the Lord and his jealousy 
shall smoke against that man, and all the curses 
that are written in this book shall lie upon him, 
and the Lord shall blot out his name from under 
heaven." A literal translation o'l the first clause 
would be, "The Lord will not pardon him." 
(Bible Commentary.) "The anger of the Lord," 
"the curses of this book," and the "blotting out 
of the offender's name," constituted the punish- 
ment of his sin, and which came upon him be- 
cause God did not "spare" or pardon him. If 
God had pardoned him this punishment would 
not have come upon him — it w r ould have been 
remitted. 

' ' Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and 
5 



66 JUSTIFICATION. 

clamor, and evil speaking, be put away from you, 
with all malice ; and be ye kind one to another, 
tender hearted, forgiving one another, even as 
God, for Christ's sake hath forgiven you." (Eph. 
iv, 31, 32.) In this text the term "tender- 
hearted" is the antithesis of "bitterness," 
"wrath," "anger," and "clamor;" while "for- 
giving " stands in opposition to " malice." Webs- 
ter defines malice, "Enmity of heart; malevo- 
lence ; ill-will ; a spirit desiring harm or misfortune 
to another; a disposition to injure others." Then 
when Paul desired these brethren to put aside all 
malice and forgive each other, he asked them to 
put away all desire or intention of injuring or 
harming each other. And this manner of for- 
giveness he represents as being the same which 
they had received at the hand of God. Then 
God, in forgiving their sins, had remitted or put 
aside the harm or injury which was due to them 
as a punishment. "Forgiving one another, if 
any man have a quarrel against any ; even as 
Christ forgave you, so also do ye." (Col. iii, 13.) 
If men quarrel and can be induced mutually to 
forgive, it is understood that they remit, or put 
away, the punishment they meant to inflict on 
each other. The apostle urges the duty of doing 
this because God has forgiven us. If God did 
not remit the punishment of our sins when he 



PUNISHMENT AND FORGINENESS. 67 

forgave us, then how does his forgiving" us form a 
reason for our remitting the punishment of those 
who have wronged us? We can not change the 
hearts of those who sin against us; we can not 
prevent them doing wrong in the future; we can 
only release them from the penalty or punish- 
ment due to their offenses ; and as our forgive- 
ness of them is modeled after God's forgiveness 
of us, it follows that his forgiveness of us was a 
releasing us from the penalty due our past sins. 
"When ye stand praying, forgive if ye have 
aught against any, that your Father also which is 
in heaven may forgive you your trespasses." 
(Mark xi, 25.) The first thing to do in the ex- 
amination of this text is to settle the meaning 
of the words "your trespasses." 1st. These 
words do not mean the sinful nature of the heart. 
The words do not indicate condition, but acts or 
deeds by which the law of God has been trans- 
gressed. Again, they can not refer to any future 
transgression, but to acts or deeds already pur- 
posed or committed. No sin or trespass is ours 
until it has at least been determined upon ; so 
that forgiving " our trespasses " can not have any 
reference ti; any future sins. The phrase "our 
trespasses," then, is restricted to our sinful pur- 
poses and actions of the past. It is these past 
trespasses which God proposes to forgive. What 



6S JUSTIFICATION. 

does God do when he forgives "our trespasses?" 
He can not put those trespasses away from us so 
that they shall cease to be ours; it will ever be 
true that we committed them, and they must re- 
main ours forever. God can purify the heart. 
This will save us from trespassing in the future, 
and so save us from the consequences and punish- 
ment of sin in the future. But this does not 
reach the past. "Our trespasses" of the past 
are yet undisposed of. It is now evident, we 
think, that God can do but one of two things 
with these past trespasses. He must either pun- 
ish them or forgive them by remitting the punish- 
ment due them. He promises, if we forgive our 
brother the punishment due to his offenses against 
us, he will forgive the punishment due to our 
offenses. It is on this principle he has taught us 
to pray, " Forgive us our debts as we forgive our 
debtors;" which has been well paraphrased, 

" That mercy I to others show, 
That mercy show to me." 

In the parable of "the unmerciful servant," 
(Matt, xviii, 25-35), the king had a servant 
who owed him ten thousand talents and was un- 
able to pay. The king commanded him and his 
wife and children to be sold ; but when the debtor 
begged for mercy the king graciously forgave him 



PUNISHMENT AND FORGIVENESS. 69 

the debt and the penalty which was attached to 
the non-payment of it. This selling of a debtor 
was provided for by Roman law as a means of 
liquidating the debt and of punishing dishonest 
debtors. When the king forgave the debt he re- 
mitted this punishment of slavery. This par- 
doned servant meets a fellow-servant owing him 
a hundred pence. He demands payment, and 
when his fellow-servant, who is unable to pay, 
asks for mercy, he refuses to forgive him, and 
enforces the penalty of the law upon him. This 
act of his coming to the ear of the king, he 
causes the ungrateful servant to be re-arrested; 
he revokes his pardon, and consigns him to 
remediless punishment. Christ tells us that God 
will treat us in the same manner if we do not for- 
give those who trespass against us. The lessons 
of this text are to the point. If we punish an 
offending brother without mercy, God will do the 
same by us ; if we release our brother frOm pun- 
ishment, God will release us from it. Christ calls 
this remission of the penalty forgiveness. It 
would be difficult to see how -the proof that for- 
giveness involves the remission of the penalty 
could be plainer or stronger. 



III. 

IMPUTATION OF THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF 
CHRIST. 

IT is claimed by Calvinists that in the justifi- 
cation of the sinner, in addition to the pardon 
of sin, God imputes or reckons to the sinner 
the active righteousness or obedience of Christ. 
They do not mean that the benefit of Christ's 
righteousness is given to the sinner, but that 
the righteousness of Christ itself is given to him, 
and that in such a sense as to reckon or account 
it his own. Read the following quotations from 
their standard authorities: 

" Those whom God effectually calleth, he 
also freely justifieth; not by infusing righteous- 
ness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and 
by accounting and accepting their persons as 
righteous, not for any thing wrought in them, or 
done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; not 
by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or 
any other evangelical obedience to them, as their 
righteousness, but by imputing the obedience 
and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiv- 

70 



IMPUTATION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. J\ 

ing and resting on him and his righteousness by 
faith." (Presbyterian Confession of Faith, chap. 
II, sec. I.) 

"This imputation is an act of God ex mera 
gj'atia, of his mere love and grace, whereby on 
the consideration of the mediation of Christ, he 
makes an effectual grant and donation of a true, 
real, perfect righteousness, even that of Christ 
himself to all that believe, and accounting it as 
theirs, on his own gracious act, both absolves 
them from sin and grants them right and title to 
eternal life. Hence, in this imputation, the thing 
itself is first imputed to us, and not any of the 
effects of it, but they are made ours by virtue 
of imputation. To say that the righteousness 
of Christ — that is, his obedience and sufferings — 
are imputed to us only as to their effects, is to 
say that we have the benefit of them, and no 
more; but imputation itself is denied." (Owen 
on Justification, pp. 195, 196.) Notice in the 
foregoing quotation these points: First. Christ's 
obedience itself is imputed. Second. It is not 
an imputation of the effects; to teach an impu- 
tation of effects only is to destroy the doctrine 
of imputation. 

"Sometimes the expression is taken by our 
diyines in a larger sense, for the imputation of 
all that Christ did and suffered for our redemption, 



72 JUSTIFICATION. 

whereby we are free from guilt, and stand right- 
eous in the sight of God; and so implies the 
imputation of both Christ's satisfaction and obe- 
dience. But here I intend it in a stricter sense 
for the imputation of that righteousness, or 
moral goodness, that consists in the obedience to 
Christ. And by that righteousness being im- 
puted to us, is meant no other than this, that 
that righteousness of Christ is accepted for us, 
and admitted instead of that perfect inherent 
righteousness that ought to be in ourselves: 
Christ's perfect obedience shall be reckoned to 
our account, so that we shall have the benefit of 
it, as though we had performed it ourselves." 
(Edwards's Works, Vol. IV, p. 91.) 

"It is, therefore, the righteousness of Christ, 
his perfect obedience in doing and suffering the 
will of God, which is imputed to the believer, 
and on the ground of which the believer, al- 
though in himself ungodly, is pronounced right- 
eous, and, therefore, free from the curse of the 
law, and entitled to eternal life." (Hodge's 
Theol., Vol. Ill, p. 151.) 

It will be seen by the foregoing quotations 
that Calvinists are divided among themselves 
about the imputation to us of Christ's passive 
obedience; but they are a unit on the question 
of the imputation of his active righteousness. 






IMPUTATION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. J^ 

The idea of imputing- the effects of his righteous- 
ness to us, is rejected as being no imputation at 
all. They insist upon the imputation of his per- 
sonal righteousness itself, and this in such a man- 
ner as to make it ours. This doctrine is the 
counterpart of that of the imputation of Adam's 
sin to his posterity; and like it, involves the ab- 
surdity of supposing that God could and does 
confound the moral demerit or merit of one per- 
son with that of another. To this objection 
Jonathan Edwards answers: "Why can not that 
righteousness [of Christ] be reckoned to our ac- 
count and accepted for us without any such ab- 
surdity? Why is there any more absurdity in 
it than in a merchant's transferring debt or credit 
from one man's account to another, so that it 
shall be accepted as if that other had paid it? 
Why is there any more absurdity in supposing 
that Christ's obedience is imputed to us, than 
that his satisfaction is imputed? If Christ suf- 
fered the penalty of the law for us, and in our 
stead, then it will follow that his suffering that 
penalty is imputed to us, that is, that it is ac- 
cepted for us, and in our stead, and is reckoned 
to our account, as though we had suffered it. 
But why may not his obeying the law of God 
be as rationally reckoned to our account, as his 
suffering the penalty of the law?" (Works, Vol. 



74 JUSTIFICATION. 

IV, p. 92.) The case referred to by Edwards 
bears no analogy to the Calvinistic idea of im- 
puted righteousness. The payment of a debt by 
another than the original debtor may be accom- 
plished in two widely different ways : First. Two 
or more men may be mutually indebted to each 
other, and may cancel each other's debts by sim- 
ple transfer of claims. It will not be claimed by 
Calvinists that this presents any analogy to their 
dogma of imputation. Secondly. Where the 
debtor is unable to pay his debt, another may 
do it for him. In this case it can not truthfully 
be said that the debtor paid his debt. Truth 
would require the statement that it had been paid 
not by him but for him. The payment of the 
debt could not be imputed to the debtor; but 
the legal benefits of such payment might, and 
of right ought, to be imputed to him. Christ's 
righteousness neither active nor passive is im- 
puted to us, but the consequences of both are. 
Edwards asks, "Is there any more absurdity in 
supposing that Christ's obedience is imputed to 
us, than that his satisfaction is imputed?" I 
answer, none whatever; both ideas are alike un- 
scriptural and absurd. Neither his obedience nor 
suffering is imputed to us, in the sense of be 
ing done by us. We are saved, not by the im- 
putation of these things to us; but by being 



IMPUTATION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. 75 

made partakers of the benefits resulting there- 
from. ''Nor is there any weight in the argu- 
ment that as our sins were accounted his, so 
his righteousness is accounted ours. Our sins 
were never so accounted Christ's as that he did 
them, and so justly suffered for them. This is 
a monstrous notion which has been sometimes 
pushed to the verge of blasphemy. Our trans- 
gressions are never said to have been imputed to 
him in the fact, but only that they were laid 
upon him in the penalty. To be God's 'beloved 
Son in whom he was always well pleased,' and 
to be reckoned, imputed, counted, a sinner, de 
facto, are manifest contradictions. This whole 
doctrine of the imputation of Christ's personal 
moral obedience to believers, as their own per- 
sonal moral obedience, involves a fiction and im- 
possibility inconsistent with the divine attributes. 
The judgment of the all-wise God is always ac- 
cording to truth; neither can it ever consist with 
his unerring wisdom to think that I am innocent, 
to judge that I am righteous or holy because 
another is so. He can no more confound me 
with Christ than with David or Abraham. But 
a contradiction is involved in another view. If 
what our Lord was and did is to be accounted 
to us in the sense just given, then we must be 
accounted never to have sinned, because Christ 



j6 JUSTIFICATION. 

never sinned, and yet we must ask for pardon, 
though we are accounted from birth to death to 
have fulfilled God's law in Christ, or if they 
should say that when we ask for pardon we ask 
only for a revelation to us of our eternal pardon 
or justification, the matter is not altered, for 
what need is there of pardon in time or eternity 
if we are accounted to have perfectly kept God's 
holy law? and why should we be accounted also to 
have suffered in Christ the penalty of sins which we 
are accounted never to have committed?" (Wat- 
son's Inst., Vol. II, pp. 216, 217.) The imputa- 
tion of Christ's righteousness to man is a work 
of supererogation. If it be said that it is done 
to prepare the man for pardon, then he needs no 
pardon, for that righteousness supersedes all ne- 
cessity of pardon. If he is invested with the 
righteousness of Christ in such a sense that it is 
regarded as his own, then he must be consid- 
ered as never having sinned, for Christ never 
sinned, and he needs no pardon. If it be said 
that it is a result of pardon, then it is uncalled 
for; the pardon of sin wipes out all the past, and 
the sanctification of the Holy Spirit cleanses 
from sin both present and future. In both cases 
either pardon or imputation of righteousness is 
superfluous ; but as pardon is a blessed reality, 
imputed righteousness can be only a fiction. 



IMPUTATION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. 77 

Dr. Hodge writes : ' ' Imputation never changes 
the inward subjective state of the person to whom 
the imputation is made. When sin is imputed to 
a man he is not made sinful ; when the zeal of 
Phinehas was imputed to him he was not made 
zealous. When you impute theft to a man you 
do not make him a thief. When you impute 
goodness to a man you do not make him good. 
So when righteousness is imputed to the believer, 
he. does not thereby become subjectively right- 
eous. If the righteousness be adequate, and if 
the imputation be made on adequate grounds and 
by competent authority, the person to whom the 
imputation is made has the right to be treated as 
righteous." (Theol., Vol. Ill, p. 145.) True, 
"imputation does not change the inward sub- 
jective state of the person," but in Scriptural 
usage it declares his condition, or charges him 
with certain character or conduct. Hodge says 
"when sin is imputed to a man he is not made 
sinful." No; but he is declared to be sinful; 
and if he is not such in his own thought and 
actions, then the imputation is false. "When 
you impute theft to a man you do not make him 
a thief." No; but you declare him to be one; 
and if the man has not stolen then the imputation 
is false. "So when righteousness is imputed to 
the believer he does not thereby become subjec- 



?8 JUSTIFICATION. 

tively righteous." No; but the imputation de- 
clares him to be righteous, and if he be not sub- 
jectively and really such, then the imputation is 
false. Righteousness is an attribute of a moral 
being, and no fiction can invest a man with such 
an attribute if it is not really his. " If the right- 
eousness be adequate, and if the imputation be 
made on adequate grounds and by competent 
authority, the person to whom the imputation is 
made has the right to be treated as righteous." 
This category of suppositions might be accepted 
if Dr. Hodge would be so kind as to point out to 
the world the "competent authority." Is there 
any authority known to man competent to sustain 
a false presentation of facts ? Is there any author- 
ity competent to invest a person with a moral 
character which never belonged to him? We 
doubt the existence of any authority competent 
to a task so self-contradictory in its nature. 

Let us now examine those texts which are 
quoted in support of the dogma: 

"Surely shall one say, In the Lord have I 
righteousness and strength." (Isa. xlv, 24.) This 
text says nothing about the imputation of right- 
eousness to any one. It simply represents a per- 
son as saying, or confessing, that God was the 
author of both his righteousness and strength. 
Calvin states the force of the verse briefly and 






IMPUTATION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. 79 

well: "Because righteousness and strength are 
the two main points of our salvation, the faithful 
acknowledge God to be the author of both." 
"This is his name whereby he shall be called, 
The Lord our Righteousness." (Jer. xxiii. 6.) 
"This passage also proves nothing to the point, 
for it is neither said that the righteousness of the 
Lord shall be our righteousness, nor that it shall 
be imputed to us for righteousness, but simply 
that the name by which he shall be called or ac- 
knowledged shall be The Lord our Righteous- 
ness — that is, the Author and Procurer of our 
righteousness or justification before God. So he 
is said to be 'the Resurrection/ 'our Life,' 'our 
Peace,' etc., as the author of these blessings; for 
whoever dreamt that Christ is 'the life,' 'the resur- 
rection,' 'the peace' of his people by imputation? 
or that we live by being accounted to live in him, 
or are raised from the dead by being accounted 
to have risen in him?" (Watson.) 

"To them that have obtained like precious 
faith with us through the righteousness of God 
and our Savior Jesus Christ." (2 Peter i, 1.) 
Here, again, nothing is said about imputation, 
nor any thing that could be tortured into such an 
idea. The text is a declaration that our faith 
comes to us through the "righteousness," or re- 
deeming mercy, of Christ. Some render the 



80 JUSTIFICATION. 

text, "Faith in the righteousness," etc.; that is, 
faith in the redeeming mercy of Christ. 

"But now the righteousness of God, without 
the law, is manifested, being witnessed by the 
law and the prophets, even the righteousness of 
God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and 
upon all them that believe." (Rom. iii, 21, 22.) 
" 'The righteousness of God' here is, by some, 
taken to signify the righteousness of Christ im- 
puted to them that believe. But the very text 
makes it evident that by the 'righteousness of 
God ' the righteousness of the Father is meant, 
for he is distinguished from 'Jesus Christ,' men- 
tioned immediately afterwards ; and by the right- 
eousness of God it is also plain that his rectoral 
justice in the administration of pardon is meant, 
which, of course, is not thought capable of im- 
putation. This is made indubitable by the verse 
which follows — 'To declare at this time his 
righteousness, that he might be just and the 
justifier of him that believeth on Jesus.'" 
(Watson.) 

The advocates of imputed righteousness place 
great reliance on Romans v, 18, 19. I will give 
the text, the argument of Edwards upon it, and 
the answer as given by Hare. 

"By the righteousness of one, the free gift 
came upon all men unto justification of life. For 



IMPUTATION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. 8 1 

as by one man's disobedience many were made 
sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many 
be made righteous." 

' ' Here in one verse we are told that we have 
justification by Christ's righteousness ; and that 
there might be no room to understand the right- 
eousness spoken of merely as Christ's atonement 
by his suffering the penalty, in the next verse it 
is put in other terms, and asserted that it is by 
Christ's obedience that we are made righteous. 
It is scarce possible that any thing should be 
more full and determined. The terms, taken 
singly, are such as do fix their own meaning; 
and taken together they fix the meaning of each 
other. The words show that we are justified by 
that righteousness of Christ that consists in his 
obedience, and that we are made righteous, or 
justified, by that obedience of his ; that is, his 
righteousness, or moral goodness, before God." 
(Works, Vol. IV, p. 97.) To this I give Hare's 
answer: "As the apostle has unequivocally de- 
cided that we are justified by the blood of Christ, 
or, in other words, 'that we are justified through 
the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom 
God hath set forth a propitiation through faith in 
his blood ' (a thing which the doctrine under ex- 
amination supposes to be impossible), there is 
reason to suspect that he speaks here of his 



82 JUSTIFICATION. 

passive, rather than his active obedience. If, in- 
deed, his willingness to suffer for our sins were 
never spoken of as an act of obedience, such an 
observation might have the appearance of a mere 
expedient to get rid of a difficulty ; but if, on the 
contrary, this should prove to be the very spirit 
and letter of the Scriptures, the justness of it 
will be obvious. Hear, then, our Lord himself 
on this subject: 'Therefore doth my Father love 
me, because I lay down my life that I might take 
it again. This commandment have I received of 
my Father.' (John x, 17, 18.) This, then, was 
the commandment to which he rendered willing 
obedience when he said, 'O my Father, if this 
cup may not pass away from me except I drink 
it, thy will be done.' (Matt, xxvi, 42.) 'The 
cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not 
drink it?' (John xviii, 11.) In conformity with 
this, the apostle applies to him the following 
words : * Wherefore when he cometh into the 
world he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst 
not, but a body hast thou prepared me. Then 
said I, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. ' By 
his performance of which will we are sanctified 
through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ 
once for all. (Heb. x, 5, 10.) ' Being found in 
fashion as a man,' says St. Paul, 'he became 
obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.' 



IMPUTATION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. 83 

Such was his obedience — an obedience to the 
death of the cross ; and by this obedience unto 
the death of the cross shall many be constituted 
righteous, or justified. Where, then, is the im- 
putation of his active obedience for justification?" 
(Hare on Justification, pp. 96, 97.) 

Edwards endeavors to avoid the force of these 
facts by suggesting that even if the " obedience " 
mentioned by Paul is the obedience of Christ's 
submission to suffering, nevertheless it is an obe- 
dience to law and obligation, and hence may be 
classed with Christ's active obedience to God's 
law, and as such be imputed to us. But this can 
not be sustained. If by the term "obedience" 
the apostle designated Christ's sufferings merely 
as an act of moral obedience to law, and that by 
this we are justified, then two difficulties arise: 

J. Christ's obedience to a sacrificial death is a 
species of righteousness which is wholly inappro- 
priate to us. We were never under a law which 
required at our hands an expiatory death as an 
act of obedience or righteousness. Nay, more, 
we had no legal right to die a vicarious death. 
The right to yield up life in expiation of the sins 
of others belongs only to one who is the author 
of his own life — that is to Christ alone. Such 
righteousness does not fit us, and can not be im- 
puted to us. 



84 JUSTIFICATION. 

2. By this notion, Christ's death as a sacrifi- 
cial atonement is wholly excluded from any con- 
nection with our justification. This would be 
in direct conflict with the apostolic declaration, 
that we are "justified freely by his grace through 
the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom 
God hath set forth a propitiation through faith 
in his blood." (Rom. iii, 24, 25.) There is 
then no escape from the conclusion that the 
apostle by the term "obedience" designates 
Christ's sacrificial death, a matter which can not 
in any sense of the word be imputed to us. 
Edwards urges that the text puts the moral 
"disobedience" of Adam in contrast with the 
"obedience" of Christ, and thus shows that the 
obedience of Christ was obedience to moral law 
and as such might be imputed. All this falls to 
the ground in the face of the foregoing proof 
that the apostle did not refer to Christ's moral 
obedience, or obedience to moral law; but to 
the sacrificial death of the cross. And Paul 
does not contrast Adam's disobedience with 
Christ's pure morality, or perfect obedience to 
moral law, but with the expiation of our sins, 
effected by the death of Christ, and with the 
benefits flowing therefrom. Dr. Hodge says: 
"The Bible does teach that Christ obeyed the 
law in all its precepts, and that he endured 



IMPUTATION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. 85 

its penalty, and that . this was done in such a 
sense for his people that they are said to have 
done it. They died in him. They were cruci- 
fied with him." That Christ obeyed the law in 
all its precepts, and that he suffered for our sins 
is unquestionably true; but that we are said to 
have done these things, is without any proper 
Scripture foundation. The notion is based on a 
misinterpretation of Rom. vi, 6, 8 : Gal. ii, 20. 
An examination of these texts will show that 
there is no reference to our being mystically 
united to Christ in his death, in any such man- 
ner as would warrant the statement that we died 
with him on the cross ; but that in our change 
from sin to holiness we died unto sin, as cer- 
tainly as he died for our sin. Barnes says, "The 
word 'with' (auv) here is joined to the verb 'is 
crucified,' and means 'is crucified as he was.'" 
Again "If we be dead in a similar manner to 
what he was ; if we are made dead to sin by his 
work, as he was dead in the grave." Although 
Olshausen is a believer in the dogma of "im- 
puted righteousness," yet he does not believe 
that this text (Rom. v, 17-19), teaches it. "Now 
we must certainly allow that the doctrine of the 
obedientia activa can not be proved from this pas- 
sage, for the nearest signification of b-rcaxor) in con- 
trast to Tiapazoi) (Adam's eating of the fruit) must 



86 JUSTIFICATION. 

be the obedient surrender of Christ to death, as 
the once done act of love, to which Phil, ii, 8, 
also has reference. Nevertheless the doctrine of 
obedientia activa has foundation in the Scripture, 
only it must be laid on other passages." (Com. 
on Rom. v, 17.) 

"Christ is the end of the law for righteous- 
ness to every one that believeth." (Rom. x, 4.) 
This text is sometimes quoted in support of 
"imputed righteousness;" but the apostle could 
hardly have arranged his words so as to give less 
support to the dogma in question than the way 
in which he has arranged the text before us. 
Had he said "that the righteousness of Christ 
was the end of the law to every one that be- 
lieveth," he would have said something savoring 
of the doctrine. But he has said nothing of this 
kind. His words set forth the glorious fact that 
his death was the perfect fulfillment of the sac- 
rificial law, in order that pardon might be granted 
to all who believe in him. Dr. Clarke's com- 
ment on this text sets the whole matter in a 
clear and truthful light. "Where the law ends, 
Christ begins. The law ends with representative 
sacrifices; Christ begins with the real offering. 
The law is our schoolmaster to lead us to Christ; 
it can not save, but leaves us at his door, where 
alone salvation is to be found. Christ as an 



IMPUTATION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. 87 

atoning sacrifice for sin was the grand object of 
the whole sacrificial code of Moses : his passion 
and death were the fulfillment of its great object 
and design. Separate this sacrificial death of 
Christ from the law, and the law has no mean- 
ing, for it is impossible that the blood of bulls 
and goats should take away sins: wherefore the 
Messiah is represented as saying, "Sacrifice and 
offering thou didst not desire; burnt offering and 
sin offering hast thou not required. Then said 
I, Lo, I come to do thy will; a body hast thou 
prepared me." (Psalms xl, 6, 7; Heb. x, 4-10.) 
Which proves that God never designed that the 
sacrifices of the law should be considered the 
atonement for sin, but a type or representative 
of that atonement, and that the atonement was 
the sacrifice offered by Christ. Thus he was the 
end of the law, in respect to its sacrifices. And, 
as sacrifices were offered merely to procure the 
pardon of sin, righteousness, or justification, 
Christ is the end of the law for this justification 
tQ every one that believeth on him, as dying for 
their offenses, and rising again for their justifica- 
tion, having made peace through the blood of 
his cross." 

We are sometimes asked, "Is not Christ 
'made unto us righteousness?'" (i Cor. i, 30.) 
Yes, just as he is made unto us "wisdom/' and 



88 JUSTIFICATION. 

"sanctification," and "redemption;" he is the 
author of each and all of these unto us. He 
gives us "wisdom" superior to that of man; he 
gives us "righteousness" or pardon out of his pure 
mercy; he sanctifies us through his Holy Spirit; 
to sum it all up he gives us complete "redemp- 
tion" from all the work of sin. 

"It should be no more assumed from this text 
that we became righteous by the imputation of 
Christ's righteousness, than it should be that we 
become wise by the imputation of his wisdom, 
and sanctified by the imputation of his holiness. 
If this passage would prove one of these points, 
it would prove all. But as it is absurd to say 
that we became wise by the imputation of the 
personal wisdom of Christ, so this passage 
should not be brought to prove that we become 
righteous by the imputation of his righteousness. 
Whatever may be the truth of that doctrine, 
this passage does not prove it." (Barnes hi loco.) 

"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who 
knew no sin, that we might be made the right- 
eousness of God in him." (2 Cor. v, 21,) The 
term d/iap-ia, " sin" in the sentence, "made him 
to be sin," is the term used in the Septuagint to 
designate a "sin offering." It is so used over 
one hundred times. It is not denied that it 
commonly means sin; but then it just as cer- 



IMPUTATION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. 89 

tainly means a "sin offering," and as Christ was 
without sin, and yet was the great sin offering, 
it ought in all reason to be rendered "sin offer- 
ing" in the text. As examples of the manner 
in which the Septuagint uses it to designate a 
sin offering, witness the few following instances: 
"Offer every day a bullock for a sin offering." 
(Ex. xxix, 36.) "The fat of the bullock for 
the sin offering," "a sin offering for the congre- 
gation," "take of the blood of the sin offering," 
"slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt 
offering," "bring a lamb for a sin offering," 
"offer that which is for the sin offering first," 
"sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering," "it 
is most holy as is the sin offering." Christ was 
"most holy," he "knew no sin," and he is our 
great "sin offering." A reference to this fact is 
a sufficient answer to that horrible interpretation 
of the text which teaches that God imputed our 
sins to Christ. The text knows nothing of either 
the imputation of our sins to Christ, nor of his 
righteousness to us. He is the great atonement 
for sin, and we through it become the pardoned 
and purified of God. "And be found in him, 
not having mine own righteousness, which is of 
the law, but that which is through the faith of 
Christ, the righteousness wdiich is of God by 
faith." (Phil, iii, 9.) Paul's "own righteous- 



90 JUSTIFICATION. 

ness," was his obedience to the law of Moses. 
In his conversion he was forced to relinquish all 
thought of such a righteousness; his transgres- 
sions of the law made him obnoxious to its pun- 
ishment, and his depraved nature rendered him 
incompetent to keep the law. In this difficulty 
the Holy Spirit leads him to ' ' the righteousness of 
God," or pardon of sin by faith in Christ. 
Faith in Christ secured for him what he never 
was able to accomplish by his effort at obeying 
the law; it brought peace with God, and purified 
his heart. Now, he declares his choice, namely, 
not to be found relying on his moral conduct, 
but on justification, or the pardon of sin by faith 
in Christ. There is nothing in the text which 
warrants the notion that the personal righteous- 
ness of Christ was transferred to Paul and ac- 
counted his. Such a notion is crude, unphilo- 
sophical, and unscriptural. But it is of the very 
essence of the Gospel, that men condemned by 
the law should find the pardon of their sins, 
through faith in "the Lamb of God, which tak- 
eth away the sin of the world." 

Psalm xxxii, I. " 'Blessed is he whose trans- 
gression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.' The 
covering of the sin here spoken of, is by some 
considered to be the investment of the sinner 
with the righteousness or obedience of Christ. 






IMPUTATION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. 9 1 

But this is entirely gratuitous, for the forgiveness 
of sin, even by the legal atonement, is called 
according to the Hebrew idiom (though another 
verb is used), to cover sin; and the latter part 
of the sentence is clearly a parallelism to the 
former. This is the interpretation of Luther and 
of Calvin himself. To forgive sin, to cover sin, 
and not to impute sin, are in this psalm all 
phrases obviously of the same import, and no 
other kind of imputation but the non-imputation 
of sin is mentioned in it. And, indeed, the pas- 
sage will not serve the purpose of the advocates 
of the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's act- 
ive righteousness, on their own principles, for 
sin can not be covered by the imputation of 
Christ's active righteousness, since they hold that 
it is taken away by the imputation of his death, 
and that the office of Christ's active righteous- 
ness is not to take away sin, but to render us 
personally and positively hoi) 7 by imputation and 
the fiction of a transfer." (Watson's Inst., Vol. 
II, p. 226.) 

Great stress is placed by Calvinistic writers on 
Romans iv, 4-6: "Now to him that worketh is 
the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on 
him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted 
for righteousness. Even as David also describeth 



92 JUSTIFICATION. 

the blessedness of the man unto whom God im- 
puteth righteousness without works." The word 
Xoyigofiat, here rendered "impute," means to rea- 
son, think, intend, reckon, attribute, or impute. 
In the sense of charge, reckon, attribute, or im- 
pute, its usage (both in the Septuagint and New 
Testament), is confined to but a few cases, and 
may easily be examined. Its first occurrence in 
the sense of reckon, or impute, is in Gen. xv, 6 : 
"And he believed in the Lord, and he counted it 
to him for righteousness." Here the thing reck- 
oned to Abraham is distinctly pointed out. It 
Mas no merit, righteousness, or faith of any third 
party, but his own personal faith, reckoned to 
him for righteousness. Again, in Lev. vii, 18: 
"And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his 
peace-offerings be eaten at all on the third day, it 
shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed 
to him that offereth it." Here the imputation of 
the offering which is refused to the guilty party 
does not relate in any way to any third party, but 
solely to the party offering. This case is a very 
plain one. An Israelite brings an offering ; on 
the third day he eats a part of it, and thus vio- 
lates the law; because of this, God refuses to 
reckon or impute his offering to him. In mer- 
cantile phrase, he refuses to credit him with it. 
In Lev. xvii, 3, 4: "What man soever there be 



IMPUTATION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. 93 

of the house of Israel that killeth an ox, or lamb, 
or goat in the camp, or that killeth it out of the 
camp, and bringeth it not unto the door of the 
tabernacle of the congregation to offer an offering 
unto the Lord before the tabernacle of the Lord; 
blood shall be imputed unto that man ; he hath shed 
blood; and that man shall be cut off from among 
his people." Here, also, the imputation was to 
the guilty party, and to no other. It was to the 
man who had shed the blood and had failed to 
bring the slain animal as an offering to the door 
of the tabernacle. It was to this man that blood 
was to be imputed. 2 Sam. xix, 19: "Let not 
my Lord impute iniquity unto me, neither do 
thou remember that which thy servant did per- 
versely." This is the language of Shimei to 
David. Shimei had cursed David when he was 
flying -from Absalom, and he now asks that his 
crime may not be imputed to him, or charged to 
him, for the purpose of punishment. 

Psalm cvi, 30, 31 : "Then stood up Phinehas 
and executed judgment: and so the plague was 
stayed. And that was counted unto him for 
righteousness." This text sets forward so plainly 
the immediate directness of the imputation of 
righteousness to the person doing it, that it needs 
no comment. Sometimes Philemon, 18 — "If he 
hath wronged thee, or oweth thee aught, put that 



94 JUSTIFICATION. 

on mine account" — is referred to by Calvinists 
for a Biblical illustration of the imputation of the 
acts of one man to another. The word here is 
not Xoyl£ofiat s but iXXoyiio, a. word coming, how- 
ever, from the same root, and of nearly synony- 
mous import. Paul here graciously offers to pay a 
debt to Philemon for Onesimus. The debt could 
only be reckoned or imputed to Paul by virtue 
of his promise to pay it. A person can assume 
the debt of another and thus make it his own ; 
and he can agree to stand in the place of and suf- 
fer for another's transgressions, but he can not 
assume those transgressions as he does the debt, 
and make the transgressions his own. According 
to the ethics of slavery, there would be two 
charges against Onesimus: first, he owed money 
to Philemon; secondly, he, being a slave, had 
absconded and forsaken the service of his master. 
Now, Paul could assume the debt, either in the 
way of business exchange" or as an act of pure 
generosity; but in no way could Paul assume the 
act of absconding, and say, Let his running away 
be imputed to me and be considered as my act. 
On the other hand, after a reconciliation had been 
effected, Onesimus could say, I owe Philemon 
nothing, for Paul has assumed my debt and paid 
it for me ; but he could not say, My reputation 
as a servant is without blemish, for although I 



IMPUTATION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. 95 

once deserted my master, yet Paul has assumed 
my offense, and it is now his and not mine. He 
might truly say that Paul had induced his master 
to forgive the offense, but he could never say that 
the offense had ceased to be his and was now im- 
puted to the apostle. 

We have now examined every text in both 
the Old and New Testaments in which Xoyi^ofiai 
is used in the sense of charge, reckon, or impute, 
and may safely say that there is no case in which 
it is used to designate the imputation of the 
deeds or character of one person to another. 
With this light on the usage of the word, we are 
now prepared to examine the stronghold of the 
Calvinistic doctrine of imputed righteousness 
" already referred to. (Rom. iv, 4-6.) First, it is 
nowhere intimated in the text that the righteous- 
ness imputed to the believer is the righteousness 
of Christ. There is not even the most remote 
allusion in the text to the righteousness of Christ. 
The text itself defines the "imputation of right- 
eousness " as being synonymous with the forgive- 
ness of sins. This view of the text is sustained 
by Calvin: "But in the fourth chapter to the 
Romans he first mentions an imputation of right- 
eousness and immediately represents it as con- 
sisting in the remission of sins. 'David,' says 
he, ' describeth the blessedness of the man unto 



g6 JUSTIFICATION. 

whom God imputeth righteousness without 
works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities 
are forgiven, ' etc. He there indeed argues not 
concerning a branch, but the whole of justifica- 
tion. He also adduces the definition of it given 
by David when he pronounces them to be blessed 
who receive the free forgiveness of their sins ; 
whence it appears that this righteousness of 
which he speaks is simply opposed to guilt." 
(Inst., Lib. 3, Chap, n, Sec. 4.) 

Barnes's note on this text is clear ; we quote 
part of it: " Being thus pardoned, he is treated 
as a righteous man. And it is evidently in this 
sense that the apostle uses the expression ■ im- 
puteth righteousness;' that is, he does not im- 
pute or charge on the man his sins ; he reckons 
and treats him as a pardoned and righteous man. 
(Psalm xxxii, 2.) He regards him as one who is 
forgiven and admitted to his favor, and who is 
to be treated henceforth as though he had not 
sinned ; that is, he partakes of the benefits of 
Christ's atonement so as not henceforward to be 
treated as a sinner, but as a friend of God." 

Dr.- Hodge offers, in support of the Calvin- 
istic notion of imputed righteousness, an argu- 
ment founded on our union with Christ. He 
saws our union with him "is mystical, supernat- 
ural, representative, and vital. We were in him 



IMPUTATION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. 97 

before the foundation of the world (Eph. i, 4) ; 
we are in him as we were in Adam (Rom. v, 12, 
21 ; I Cor. xv, 22) ; we are in him as the mem- 
bers of the body are in the head (Eph. i, 23 ; iv, 
16; 1 Cor. xii, 12, 27, and often) ; we are in him 
as the branches are in the vine (John xv, 1-12). 
We are in him in such a sense that his death is 
our death. We were crucified with him (Gal. ii, 
20 ; Rom. vi, 1-8) ; we are so united with him 
that we rose with him and sit with him in hea- 
venly places (Eph. ii, 1-6). In virtue of this 
union we are (in our measure) what he is. We 
are the sons of God in him, and what he did we 
did; his righteousness is our righteousness." 
(TheoL, Vol. Ill, p. 127.) 

I will review the separate clauses of this argu- 
ment in their consecutive order. Thus: "We 
were in him before the foundation of the world." 
Can Dr. Hodge show that this implies any thing 
more than that we were foreknown as believers in 
Christ ? " We are in him as we were in Adam." 
We were never so in Adam as to be charged with 
doing what he did ; nor are we so in Christ as to 
make it true that we have done what he did. 
Adam's sin is imputed to us not immediately but 
mediately ; not in itself, but in its consequences. 
The same holds true concerning Christ's right- 
eousness. "We are so united with him that we 
7 



98 JUSTIFICATION. 

rose with him." Christ's resurrection makes that 
of his followers absolutely sure ; and in this sense 
the apostle speaks of us rising with him. But 
to serve the purpose of Calvinian imputation it 
should read, " that his resurrection is imputed to 
us " — a proposition too absurd to need any an- 
swer. "In virtue of this 'union we are (in our 
measure) what he is." Not by imputation, but 
by an imparted spiritual life. We receive life 
and power from him as the branch does from the 
vine. "We are the sons of God in him." Not 
by imputation but by right and power given to 
those who believe. (John i, 12.) "And what he 
did we did." This statement is emasculated by 
its own absurdity. 

objections to the doctrine of the imputation 
of Christ's righteousness. 

In addition to the objections previously stated, 
the following are presented for consideraton : 
First. The doctrine destroys at one sweep all 
necessity for an atoning sacrifice, substituting an 
acceptance by a purely legal obedience in the 
place of it. The redemption of man from sin 
consists of two parts, deliverance from condem- 
nation for past sin, and deliverance from the 
power of sin. This last is effected by the agency 
and work of the Holy Spirit. The removal of 



IMPUTATION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. 99 

the condemnation (on the Calvinistic theory) is 
by the imputation of Christ's righteousness; not 
by granting to the penitent the benefits of his 
sufferings and death; but by the imputation of 
his active obedience to the moral law of God. 
Now, if the perfect righteousness of Christ be 
imputed to the sinner, covering all his sins, then 
he needs no atonement for them. It is not nec- 
essary that they be completely hidden by the 
righteousness of Christ, and at the same time be 
atoned for by his blood. One or the other is a 
work of supererogation. As the system holds 
to the imputation of his righteousness, it must 
do it at the expense of his atoning death. It is 
in vain for them to say that they believe in both 
the atonement and the imputation of righteous- 
ness. Their doing so is simply inconsistency. 
Where the imputation of righteousness is held, 
there the atonement is superfluous; for by the 
terms of the doctrine, the imputation of Christ's 
righteousness to the believer invests him with an 
eternal righteousness, and declares him never to 
have been any thing else but righteous, thus ren- 
dering every thing like an atoning sacrifice en- 
tirely superfluous. Goodwin, in his "Treatise 
on Justification," states this objection in great 
strength: "If men be as righteous as Christ was 
in his life, there was no more necessity of his 



100 JUSTIFICATION. 

death for them, than there was either for his own 
death or the death of any other for himself. If 
we were perfectly just or righteous in him or 
with 'him in his life, then the just would not have 
died for the unjust, but he would have died for 
the just, for whom there was no necessity he 
should die. This reason the apostle expressly 
delivers. (Gal. ii, 21.) 'If righteousness be by 
the law, then Christ died in vain.' I desire the 
impartial reader to observe narrowly the force of 
this inference made by the Holy Ghost. If 
righteousness or justification be by the law, then 
Christ died in vain. Men can not here betake 
themselves to their wonted refuge, to say that by 
the law is to be understood the works of the 
law as performed by man's self in person. For 
if by the word law in this place we understand 
the works of the law as performed by Christ, 
the consequence will rise up with greater strength 
against them. If righteousness were by the 
works of the law, as performed by Christ, that 
is, if the imputation of them were our complete 
righteousness, the death of Christ for us had been 
in vain, because the righteousness of his life im- 
puted had been a sufficient and complete right- 
eousness for us." 

It is objected to the doctrine of imputed 
righteousness, that the Scriptures nowhere attrib- 



IMPUTATION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. IOI 

ute our salvation to the active righteousness of 
Christ, but to his sufferings and death. This 
objection is so well stated by Hare, that I will 
give his statement of it at length: "By what- 
ever appellation we distinguish that blessing of 
which we are now inquiring into the meritorious 
cause, our possession of it is attributed by the 
writers of the New Testament not to an imputa- 
tion of the active obedience of Christ as distin- 
guished from his vicarious sufferings, but to our 
having an interest in the virtue of his death. 
For instance: Do we call it the forgiveness of 
sins? 'We have redemption through his blood, 
the forgiveness of sins.' (Eph. i, 7; Col. i, 14.) 
Is it remission of sins? 'Without shedding of 
blood there is no remission.' (Heb. ix, 22.) 
Must it be denominated the purgation of the 
conscience from sin? 'The blood of Christ, who 
through the eternal Spirit offered himself with- 
out spot to God, shall purge your conscience 
from dead works.' (Heb. ix, 14.) Will it be 
pertinent to know how we are delivered from the 
curse pronounced against every one who contin- 
ue th not in all things written in the book of the 
law to do them? 'Christ hath delivered us from 
the curse of the law, being made a curse for us; 
as it is written, Cursed is he that hangeth on a 
tree.' (Gal. iii, 13.) Are we to inquire into 



102 JUSTIFICATION. 

the means of reconciliation with God? 'When 
we were enemies we were reconciled to God by 
the death of his son.' (Rom. v, 10.) Again, 
'That he might reconcile both unto God in one 
body by the cross.' (Eph. ii, 16.) Once more, 
'And you that were sometime alienated and en- 
emies in your mind by wicked works, yet now 
hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh 
through death.' (Col. i, 21, 22.) Does the 
question relate to the means of obtaining peace 
with God? 'He has made peace through the 
blood of the cross.' (Col. i, 20.) Is it asked, 
How is one who is separated from God by sin 
brought near to him again? 'Now, in Christ 
Jesus, ye who sometime were afar off are made 
nigh by the blood of Christ.' (Eph. ii, 13.) 
Will it be more pertinent to demand, How is 
a guilty sinner justified? 'Being now justified 
by his blood.' (Rom. v. 9); or, in other words, 
'All have sinned and come short of the glory 
of God: being justified freely by his grace, 
through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ 
whom God hath set forth a propitiation througl 
faith in his blood.' Shall we come still nearer 
to the question if we ask, How are we accounted 
righteous before God? 'He hath made him to 
be sin [a sin offering] for us, who knew no sin, 
that we might be made the righteousness of God 



IMPUTATION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. 103 

in him.' (2 Cor. v, 21.) Do we still need to 
ascertain how we, are received into the paternal 
favor of our heavenly Father? 'When the full- 
ness of the time was come, God sent forth his 
Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to 
redeem them that were under the law, that we 
might receive the adoption of sons.' (Gal. iv, 
4, 5.) And, finally, that nothing may be want- 
ing, would we know also how our paternal and 
everlasting inheritance is secured to us? 'For 
this cause he is the mediator of the new testa- 
ment, that by means of death, for the redemp- 
tion of the transgressions that were under the 
first testament, they which are called might 
receive the promise of eternal inheritance.' 
(Heb. ix, 15.) Thus, all that, in the Scriptural 
use of the term, is included in justification, even 
the title which it gives to eternal glory, is attrib- 
uted to the vicarious sufferings of Christ, and 
not to a transfer of his active obedience, as dis- 
tinguished from his atonement. And what can 
an unprejudiced inquirer infer from this obvious 
truth, but that the transfer of the active right- 
ousness of Christ for our justification, super- 
added to the forgiveness of sins through his 
death, or to constitute our title to eternal life 
in addition to our deliverance from the wrath 
to come, is a mere human invention?" 



IV. 

IMPUTATION OF FAITH FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS. 

HAVING examined and rejected the dogma 
of the imputation of the righteousness of 
Christ, let us now consider that of the "imputa- 
tion of faith for righteousness." 

The proof of this is clearly set forth in the 
Epistle to the Romans, chap, iv, 3, 5, 9, 22-24: 
"Abraham believed God, and it was counted to 
him for righteousness." "But to him that 
worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth 
the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteous- 
ness." "For we say that faith was reckoned to 
Abraham for righteousness." "And therefore it 
was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it 
was not written for his sake alone that it was im- 
puted to him, but for us also, to whom it shall be 
imputed, if we believe on him that raised up 
Jesus our Lord from the dead." 

We could well afford to risk the whole matter 

with the reader on the plain natural meaning of 

these words. In simple, unambiguous terms, 

they set forth the fact that Abraham's personal 

104 



IMPUTATION OF FAITH. 105 

faith in God was imputed to him for righteous- 
ness. It is objected by Calvin ists that the word 
"faith" is here put for the object of faith; that 
is, for "the righteousness of Christ." The idea 
that "faith" here stands for an}- thing else than 
a personal trust is pure assumption, without any 
foundation whatever. Again, neither the active 
nor passive righteousness of Christ is the object 
of faith. Not his righteousness, but Christ him- 
self, is the object of faith. 

That which is imputed to Abraham is "his 
faith';" that is, it is "his " before the imputation 
is made. This could not possibly be true if 
it was the righteousness of Christ that was im- 
puted. If, for the sake of the argument, Ave 
were to admit that the righteousness of Christ 
could become the property of man, still it could 
not belong to the man until after it had been im- 
puted to him ; so that we could not truthfully say 
that it was ' ' his " righteousness that was imputed ; 
but the apostle explicitly declares of Abraham 
that it was "his faith " that was imputed to him. 
In the very nature of the case, a person could 
and must have faith before it could be imputed to 
him, so that it would be proper to say, "his faith 
was imputed to him." 

The faith which was imputed is spoken of as 
Abraham's personal act — his believing in God. 



106 JUSTIFICATION. 

It is said "he believed God;" "believeth on him 
who justifietll the ungodly." 

"Asa sinner, Abraham's faith, being an entire 
self- surrender to God, pregnant with holy obe- 
dience, was accepted in the lieu of past and per- 
fect righteousness, so that he was accepted and 
held just as if he had never sinned. And as of 
Abraham so of every man. Acceptance, justifi- 
cation, the being held righteous, can be attained 
never by the righteousness of any one work or 
many works of ours ; for our works benefit not 
God, confer nothing upon him, buy nothing of 
him ; but it comes most freely and gratuitously 
upon us when we perform the unreserved act of 
self-surrendering faith unto God, not for the merit 
of that self-surrender, but because that is the only 
proper position for a subject of God's mercy." 
(Whedon, in loco.) 

I subjoin the following quotations from two 
Calvinistic writers: "And it. The word 'it' 
here evidently refers to the act of believing. It 
does not refer to the righteousness of another — 
of God, or of the Messiah — but the discussion is 
solely of the strong act of Abraham's faith, which 
in some sense was counted to him for righteous- 
ness. In what sense this was is explained 
directly after. All that is material to remark 
here is, that the act of Abraham, the strong 



IMPUTATION OF FAITH. 107 

confidence of his mind in the promises of God, 
his unwavering assurance that what God had 
promised he would perform, was reckoned for 
righteousness." (Barnes, in loco.) 

"That in him which is counted for righteous- 
ness is faith in Jehovah promising mercy. In the 
absence of righteousness this is the only thing in 
the sinner that can be counted for righteousness. 
First, it is not of the nature of righteousness. If 
it were actual righteousness, it could not be 
counted as such. But believing God who prom- 
ises blessings to the undeserving is essentially 
different from obeying God who guarantees bless- 
ings to the deserving. Hence it has a negative 
fitness to be counted for what it is not. Sec- 
ondly, it is trust in him who engages to bless in 
a holy and lawful way. Hence it is that in a sin- 
ner which brings him into conformity with the 
law through another who undertakes to satisfy 
its demands and secure its rewards for him. 
Thus it is the only thing in the sinner which, 
while it is not righteousness, has yet a claim to 
be counted for such, because it brings him into 
union with one who is just and having salvation." 
(Murphy on Gen. xv, 6.) 

Dr. Hodge asks, "What right has any one to 
assume that Abraham's faith being imputed to 
him for righteousness means anything more than 



108 JUSTIFICATION. 

when it is said that the zeal of Phinehas was im- 
puted for righteousness (Psalm cvi, 31) ; or when, 
in Deut. xxiv, 13, it is said that to return a poor 
man's pledge 'shall be righteousness unto thee 
before the Lord thy God?' " (Theol., Vol. Ill, 
p. 168.) I do not know that the imputation of 
faith to Abraham means any thing more than the 
imputation of zeal in the execution of judgment 
to Phinehas, or the imputation of an act of 
charity as specified in Deuteronomy. When our 
Savior taught us to pray "Forgive us our debts 
as we forgive our debtors," he did not create a 
new condition of forgiveness, but pointed out a 
forgiving disposition as an evidence of that faith 
which is the only condition of pardon. On the 
same principle, the zeal of Phinehas and the 
charity specified by the law are evidences of the 
existence of faith and warrant its being imputed 
for righteousness. But I will let Dr. Murphy 
answer Dr. Hodge: "Righteousness is here im- 
puted to Abraham ; hence mercy and grace are 
extended to him — mercy taking effect in the par- 
don of his sin, and grace in bestowing the re- 
wards of righteousness. That in him which is 
counted for righteousness is faith in Jehovah 
promising mercy. In the absence of righteous- 
ness this is the only thing in the sinner that can 
be counted for righteousness." 



IMPUTATION OF FAITH. \Qg 

Dr. Hodge states another objection thus : 
"This doctrine is, moreover, dishonoring to the 
Gospel. It supposes the Gospel to be less holy 
than the law. The law required perfect obedi- 
ence. And how imperfect and insufficient our 
best obedience is, the conscience of every be- 
liever certifies. It does not satisfy us; how can 
it satisfy God ?" (Theol., Vol. Ill, 169, 170.) 

The foregoing objection rests upon a total mis- 
conception of the doctrine he is opposing. It is 
not claimed by Arminians that faith in Christ is 
accepted by God in the place of obedience to 
moral law as a rule of spiritual life, but simply as 
the condition of justification. Dr. Hodge has 
confounded Antinomianism with Arminianism. 

When a sinner seeks reconciliation with God, 
it will readily be admitted by both Calvinists and 
Arminians that he can not claim justification by 
the moral law, for he has broken it. The Gos- 
pel proposes to accept his penitential faith in 
Christ as a sufficient ground on which to grant 
him the pardon of his sins. Hodge objects that 
this dishonors the Gospel. But surely he does 
not mend the matter when he proposes to invest 
him with a proper moral character by imputing 
to him a righteousness which he never performed, 
which never was his, and which never can be his 
by any principle of logic or equity. The impu- 



IIO JUSTIFICATION. 

tation of faith for righteousness not only does not 
dishonor the Gospel, but on the contrary, covers 
that Gospel with glory. In the first place, the 
sinner's faith is itself a confession of his sinful- 
ness, that he deserves to die, and that he is rely- 
ing for his salvation simply and only on the 
atonement made for his sins by the blood of 
Christ. It is not possible for him at the time of 
his reconciliation to honor the law of God in a 
more decisive manner. Secondly, the very man- 
ner of his reconciliation with God gives him a 
purer and nobler conception of the divine law 
than he has ever had before. Trembling under 
the terrors of a broken law, he still is enabled to 
rejoice in deliverance; not by the spurious inves- 
titure with the righteousness of another, but by 
beholding the sinless Son of God dying in his 
stead. Thirdly, in the moment of his conversion 
he learns to love the law ; he feels to re-echo the 
words of the Psalmist, "O how I love thy law I" 
11 How sweet are thy words unto my taste; yea, 
sweeter than honey to my mouth." Fourth, by 
his faith he is so united to Christ as to be nour- 
ished by his life, and receives such moral and 
spiritual life-power as enables him to keep that 
law with a perfect heart. Thus the doctrine of 
the imputation of faith for righteousness, by 
causing the sinner to confess both his guilt and 



IMPUTATION OF FAITH. Ill 

his desert of punishment, by magnifying his con- 
ceptions of the purity and excellence of the law, 
by filling his heart with a love for that law, and 
by creating in him the ability to keep the law, 
glorifies the Gospel in the most positive manner. 

But, according to Hodge, "the grand objec- 
tion " to the doctrine of the imputation of faith 
for righteousness is, "that it is in direct contra- 
diction to the plain and pervading teachings of 
the Word of God. The Bible teaches that we 
are not justified by works ; this doctrine affirms 
that we are justified by works. The Bible teaches 
that we are justified by the blood of Christ — 
that it is for his obedience that the sentence of 
justification is passed on men ; this doctrine affirms 
that God pronounces us righteous because of our 
own righteousness. The Bible, from first to last, 
teaches that the whole ground of our salvation, 
or of our justification, is objective — what Christ 
as our Redeemer, our Ransom, our Sacrifice, our 
Surety, has done for us; this doctrine teaches us 
to look within, to what we are and to what we 
do, as the ground of our acceptance with God." 
(TheoL, Vol. Ill, p. 170.) 

This objection is trite, and has been abun- 
dantly answered time and again. Watson's an- 
swer is good, and has never been refuted: "In 
this objection the term 'works' is equivocal. 



112 JUSTIFICATION. 

If it mean works of obedience to the moral law, 
the objection is unfounded, for faith is not a work 
of this kind ; and if it mean the merit of works 
of any kind, it is equally without foundation, for 
no merit is allowed to faith, and faith, in the 
sense of exclusive affiance, or trusting in the 
merits of another, shuts out, by its very nature, 
all assumption of merit to ourselves, or there 
would be no need of resorting- to another's merit; 
but if it mean that faith, or believing, is the doing 
of something in order to our justification, it is, in 
this view, the performance of a condition — a sine 
qua 11011 — which is not only not forbidden by 
Scripture, but required of us — 'this is the 
work of God, that ye believe on him whom he 
hath sent;' ' he that believeth shall be saved, and 
he that believeth not shall be damned.' And so 
far is this considered by the Apostle Paul as 
prejudicing the free grace of God in our justifica- 
tion, that he makes our justification by faith the 
proof of its gratuitous nature — ' for by grace are 
ye saved, through faith;' 'therefore it is by faith, 
that it might be by grace.' " 

There is no small ambiguity in the language 
in which Dr. Hodge sets forth this objection. 
What does he mean by the words "our own 
righteousness" in the sentence, "This doctrine 
affirms that God pronounces us righteous because 



IMPUTATION OF FAITH. 113 

of our own righteousness?" If he means a right- 
eousness which owes its existence in us to the 
power and grace of God, then his objection is 
suicidal, for it falls with equal force on his own 
dogma of "imputed righteousness;" if he means 
a righteousness created by our own personal 
energy, without help from God, then he is. con- 
troverting a position which no Arminian writer 
assumes, and it would be a severe reflection on 
Dr. Hodge's intelligence to say that he supposed 
such a position to be the one held by Arminian 
writers. Arminianism recognizes the act of be- 
lieving as the act of the man, but at the same 
time teaches that the power by which man be- 
lieves is the gift of God. Again, he says: "This 
doctrine teaches, us to look within, to what we 
are and what we do, as the ground of our accept- 
ance with God." If Dr. Hodge means that the 
doctrine of "imputed faith" teaches a man to 
regard his faith as a virtue or merit of his own, 
which by its excellence entitles him to the favor 
of God, then the objection is utterly untrue and 
without any particle of foundation. The very 
essence of the doctrine of "imputed faith" is 
the total renunciation of self and entire reliance 
upon Christ's sufferings and death for our re- 
demption. "Yea, doubtless, and I count all 
things but loss for the excellency of the knowl- 



1 14 JUSTIFICATION. 

edge of Christ Jesus my Lord. . . . That 
I may win Christ, and be found in him, not 
having mine own righteousness, which is of the 
law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, 
the righteousness which is of God by faith." 
(Phil, iii, 8, 9.) "I am crucified with Christ; 
nevertheless I live : yet not I, but Christ liveth in 
me ; and the life which I now live in the flesh I 
live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved 
me, and gave himself for me." (Gal. ii, 20.) 



Y. 

CONDITION OF JUSTIFICATION. 

IT becomes our business now to inquire on 
what terms or condition a sinner is justified. 
Before discussing this question it is prudent to 
remark that in this treatise it is assumed that 
the death of Christ was a vicarious atonement 
for sin. It is furthermore assumed that the vi- 
carious death of Christ is the only foundation on 
which the blessings of justification, sanctification, 
and adoption can be secured. Assuming the 
truth of these propositions, we ask the reader's 
attention to a consideration of the theories con- 
cerning the condition of justification. First of 
all, let us examine the theory of baptismal 
justifiation. 

JUSTIFICATION BY BAPTISM; OR, "BAPTISMAL 
REMISSION." 

Although the doctrine of baptismal remission 
is incorporated in the creeds of the Greek and 
Romish Churches, and is held by the High- 
church party in the Church of England, and 

ii5 



Il6 JUSTIFICATION. 

also by certain branches of the Lutheran Church: 
still it is best known to the people of the West- 
ern and some of the Eastern States through the 
writings and sermons of Alexander Campbell, 
of Virginia, and his followers. Campbell was 
the founder of a sect of Baptists who, from time 
time, have been known by the different names 
of "Reformers," "Disciples," "The Christian 
Church," "The Church of Christ," "Campbell- 
ites." This last name they repudiate, although 
it is the one by which they are most com- 
monly known to, and easily designated by, the 
Christian world. In the following pages the 
term " Campbellism " will be used to desig- 
nate the dogma of "baptismal remission," as 
taught by Alexander Campbell. It will not be 
used with any disrespectful or unkindly mo- 
tive; but simply as a convenient and proper title 
for the doctrine referred to, one which is readily 
understood, and saves us from a tedious circum- 
locution ; used on the same principle and in the 
same manner in which the terms "Arianism," 
"Socinianism," " Pelagianism," ''Calvinism," and 
"Arminianism," are used by the majority of 
writers and speakers on theological subjects. 

I will state the doctrines of Mr. Campbell on 
this subject, in his own words: 

"He had that day declared the Gospel 



CONDITION OF JUSTIFICATION. 117 

facts, and proved the resurrection and ascension 
of Jesus to the conviction of thousands. They 
believed and repented — believed that Jesus was 
the Messiah, had died as a sin offering - , was risen 
from the dead, and crowned Lord of all. Being 
full of this faith, they inquired of Peter and the 
other apostles what they ought to do to obtain 
remission. They were informed that, though 
they now believed and repented, they were not 
pardoned, but must 'reform and be immersed for 
the remission of sins.' Immersion for the for- 
giveness of sins was the command addressed to 
these believers, to these penitents, in answer to 
the most earnest question: and by one of the 
most sincere, candid, and honest speakers ever 
heard. This act of faith was presented as that 
act by which a change in their state could be 
effected; or, in other words, by which alone 
they could be pardoned." (Christian System, 
pp. 194, 195.) From the foregoing quotation 
Ave gather the following items of Campbell's sys- 
tem: 1. That the believing penitents at Pentecost 
were not pardoned until they were baptized. 
2. That baptism was the "alone" act by which 
they could be pardoned. It would be difficult 
to tell how a writer pretending to state facts 
could wander farther from the truth than Mr. 
Campbell does in the foregoing quotation. 



Il8 JUSTIFICATION. 

"All these testimonies concur with each other 
in presenting the act of faith — Christian immer- 
sion, frequently called conversion — as that act, 
inseparably connected with the remission of sins; 
or that change of state of which we have already 
spoken." (Christian System, p. 197.) Passing 
by, for the present, the reckless assertion that 
immersion is frequently called conversion, let us 
notice the statement that immersion is "insepa- 
rably connected with the remission of sins." If 
baptism and remission are inseparably connected, 
then it follows, I. That baptism alone will pro- 
cure the remission of sins. It is useless to answer 
that Campbell elsewhere demands faith and repent- 
ance (or, to state them in their Scriptural order, re- 
pentance and faith), as prerequisites to baptism; 
if baptism and remission are "inseparably con- 
nected," then whenever baptism is received re- 
mission is received with it, regardless of any 
repentance or faith. Or, if remission of sins is 
not received, unless the subject has repented and 
believed, then baptism and remission of sins are 
not "inseparably connected," unless Mr. Camp- 
bell's followers will undertake to say that none 
are baptized except those who have repented 
and believe. 2. If baptism and remission are 
thus "inseparably connected," it follows that 
without baptism there is no remission. No bap- 



CONDITION OF JUSTIFICATION. 1 1 9 

tism, no remission; no matter what the repent- 
ance or faith may be. Baptism is the Alpha 
and the Omega of his "law of pardon." 

"The apostles in all their speeches and re- 
plies to interrogatories never commanded an in- 
quirer to pray, read, or sing, as preliminary to 
his coming, but always commanded and pro- 
claimed immersion as the first duty, or the first 
thing to be done after a belief of testimony. 
Hence, neither praying, singing, reading, repent- 
ing, sorrowing, resolving, nor waiting to be better, 
was the converting act. Immersion alone was 
the act of turning to God." (Christ. Syst. p. 
209.) "But one thing we do know, that none 
can rationally and with certainty enjoy the peace 
of God, and the hope of heaven, but they who 
intelligently and in full faith are born of water, 
or immersed for the remission of their sins." 
(Christ. Syst. p. 234.) Let me call the reader's 
close attention to the next quotation. Camp- 
bellism has often been charged with making bap- 
tism the only condition of pardon. This charge 
it has stoutly denied. Notwithstanding their de- 
nial, the popular voice of the Christian public 
still holds it guilty of making baptism the only 
condition of justification. The following quota- 
tion sheds a clear light upon this subject, and fully 
sustains the charge. I quote from Benjamin 



120 JUSTIFICATION. 

Franklin (the editor of the CJiristian Review), in 
his debate with Rev. S. M. (now Bishop) Merrill. 
Next to Mr. Campbell, few men have exercised a 
more powerful influence in creating and shaping 
the theology of the sect than Mr. Franklin. On 
page 994 of the published debate, he says: "It 
is a positive divine enactment — a visible line that 
must be crossed — to come to the promise. It 
changes or purifies no man's heart; it prepares 
no man's heart, nor does it change any man's 
character; but for him whose heart is changed 
by faith, and whose character is changed by re- 
pentance, it is the consummating act. For one 
thus prepared in heart by faith, and in life by 
repentance, it is the visible act of turning to God, 
the divine appointment in which God has prom- 
ised pardon." 

In the foregoing quotation Mr. Franklin has 
spoken plainly on three points: 

1. The absolute necessity of baptism to the 
remission of sins. He calls it "a positive divine 
enactment — a visible line which must be crossed 
to come to the promise." This tersely sets for- 
ward baptism as ail essential to remission of sins. 
There is no remission until the line of baptism 
is crossed. 

2. He emphatically denies that baptism 
changes, prepares, or purifies any man's heart or 






CONDITION OF JUSTIFICATION. 121 

character. This is a flat contradiction of Mr. 
Campbell, who teaches that "when the baptized 
believer rises out of the water, is born of water, 
enters the world a second time, he enters it as 
innocent, as clean, as unspotted as an angel." 
(Campbell and Rice's Debate, pp. 444, 516.) 

Leaving the followers of these men to settle 
their contradictions among themselves, let us pass 
on to notice the third point in the quotation. 
Mr. Franklin asserts that faith changes the heart, 
repentance changes the life, and baptism is the 
divine appointment in which God has promised 
pardon. According to Mr. Franklin neither 
faith nor repentance is the condition of pardon; 
but baptism is the only condition. To bring this 
feature of the quotation out clearly, let attention 
be given to the following questions: 1. What, 
according to Franklin, does faith do for the sin- 
ner? Does it procure the pardon of sin. No. 
Does it procure the change of his life? No. It 
simply changes his heart. 2. What does repent- 
ance do for the sinner? Does it procure pardon? 
No. Does it change the heart? No. It simply 
changes the life. 3. What does baptism do for 
the sinner? Does it change his heart? No. 
Faith does that. Does it change his life? No. 
Repentance does that. What, then, does baptism 
do for the sinner? It procures pardon for him; 



122 JUSTIFICATION. 

this is all that it does. And baptism is the only- 
thing- that does procure pardon. Faith does not 
do it, repentance does not do it, baptism alone 
does it. If it is replied that "faith purifies the 
heart and that purity of heart is necessary in 
order to pardon," I answer, it will be shown 
hereafter that purity of heart does not precede 
pardon; but in its proper order is subsequent to 
it, hence can not be a condition of pardon. 

The quotation from Franklin just as it stands 
plainly and unequivocally teaches that baptism 
is the only condition of pardon. For further 
testimony on this point, I quote from Franklin's 
"Gospel Preacher," p. 95. "Baptism performs 
no such part as this at all, produces no change 
in the heart or life, but changes the relation, ini- 
tiates the man previously changed in heart and 
life into a new state or relation, into the body of 
Christ. It transfers the man into the new state or 
relation. In this new state he comes to the blood 
of Christ, which performs another part of the 
work, without which he would be lost. It takes 
away his sin, cleanses or washes him from the 
guilt of sin." In the sermon from which this 
quotation is taken Mr. Franklin loudly protests 
against the idea that "baptism is the only condi- 
tion of justification." Nevertheless, in spite of 
his disclaimer, the logic of his argument makes 



CONDITION OF JUSTIFICATION. 1 23 

it such. According to the quotation, baptism 
changes neither heart nor life; but it, and it 
alone, brings us to the blood of Christ by which 
we are saved. Franklin here fully agrees with 
Mr. Campbell that baptism is that act "by which 
alone they could be pardoned." 

I will give one more quotation from Mr. 
Franklin: "A man can be changed in heart, be 
good in heart, and not be in the kingdom of God. 
He can be good in life, and not be in the kingdom 
of God. But no matter how good he is in heart and 
life, he is not in the kingdom or body of Christ 
unless immersed into the body. Immersion into 
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
the Holy Spirit, on the part of a believing peni- 
tent, is the visible act, in which he is transferred 
from one kingdom to another. Before this act, 
though he may be prepared in heart and life to 
enter, he is out of the body or kingdom; after 
this act he is in the body or kingdom." (Gos- 
pel Preacher, 146.) These quotations might be 
multiplied, but the foregoing are amply sufficient 
to place the teachings of Campbellism on the 
subject of justification clearly before the reader. 
These quotations clearly establish three items in 
the theology of the system, to wit: 

I. That baptism is the divinely appointed con- 
dition of justification. 



124 JUSTIFICATION. 

2. That baptism is the only condition of 
justification. 

3. That baptism is so essential to the for- 
giveness of sin that without it there is, and can 
be, no forgiveness. 

It is firmly believed by the Christian Churches 
(Friends excepted) that baptism is a duty en- 
joined by a positive command; that it should be 
attended to by all who are properly qualified, at 
the earliest opportunity ; that the neglect of it is 
disobedience to the positive command of Christ. 
On these points there is no controversy between 
us and the followers of Mr. Campbell. The 
question at issue between us and this sect is, "Is 
baptism an indispensable prerequisite to pardon?" 
When God sees a sinner repenting and believing 
in Christ, does he withhold pardon until the sin- 
ner has been baptized ? Campbellism affirms that 
he does; we deny. We will now examine the 
proof-texts and arguments offered in support of 
the dogma of " Baptismal Justification." 

One of the texts mainly relied upon in sus- 
taining the doctrine of baptismal justification is 
Acts ii, 37, 38 : " Now when they heard this they 
were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter 
and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, 
what shall we do ? Then Peter said unto them, 
Repent, and be baptized ever}' one of you in die 



CONDITION OF JUSTIFICATION. 1 25 

name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, 
and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." 
On this text the advocates of Campbellism teach 
that the preposition eiq ("for"), in the words 
"for the remission of sins," should be rendered 
" in order to," making the clause read, " in order 
to the remission of sins." They assert that the 
construction of the text demands this rendering. 
To such a rendering we demur. There is pre- 
cisely the same construction in Matt, iii, 11 : "I 
indeed baptize you with water unto repentance." 
In this sentence the word efe is rendered "unto," 
and can not possibly mean "in order to." Mr. 
Campbell is not at all intimidated by this fact, but 
boldly affirms that John baptized his subjects in 
order that they might reform. Let him speak 
for himself: "John calls for fruits worthy of a 
professed repentance — fruits indicative of repent- 
ance. He therefore immersed them on profession 
of penitence, or while confessing their sins, that 
they might reform. Hence he baptized men in 
order to, or for the sake of, reformation." (C. 
and R. Deb., p. 460.) 

With all due deference to the opinion of Mr. 
Campbell, we must believe that John did not 
baptize them in order that they might or should 
repent. Repentance would not be a necessary 
result of their baptism. So far from John's bap- 



126 JUSTIFICATION. 

tizing the people in order that they might repent, 
he demanded of them the evidence that they had 
really and truly repented before he would consent 
to baptize them. " Bring forth fruits therefore 
meet for repentance, " is the demand made of 
those seeking baptism. John taught repentance 
in order to baptism, not baptism in order to re- 
pentance. Campbell has already been quoted as 
declaring that John baptized the people in order 
that they might»repent, or reform ; we shall now 
see him contradict himself and declare that John 
demanded reformation before baptism. I quote 
from his ''Christian Baptism " (185 i), page 212 : 
"John, in preparing the way for its annunciation, 
therefore, very appropriately calls for personal 
reformation before baptism. He refuses all who 
can not, or who will not, confess their sins and 
profess repentance before baptism." How Mr. 
Campbell and his followers explain these contra- 
dictions we have never been informed. It might 
be asked, Did not the baptism of John obligate 
the persons receiving it to all the duties of repent- 
ance? It unquestionably did. But to serve the 
purpose of Campbellism it should be made to ap- 
pear that the people did not repent until they 
had been baptized ; on the contrary, they were 
not baptized until they had given evidence that 
they were repenting of their sins. Repentance is 



CONDITION OF JUSTIFICATION. 127 

not completed in a moment, it is a work of time. 
When the}' brought forth fruit meet for repent- 
ance they were admitted to baptism, and it obli- 
gated them to all the duties of repentance. Thus 
at Pentecost men were required to repent, their 
repentance led to faith in Christ, their faith in 
Christ procured their justification. Coming with 
their repentance, faith, and pardon, they were 
admitted to baptism, and their baptism obligated 
them to the performance of all the duties which 
their repentance, faith, and justification had in- 
volved them in. The argument of Campbellism 
on Acts ii, 38, compared with its argument on 
Matt, iii, 11, involves the two speakers — Peter 
and John — in hopeless contradiction. According 
to Campbell's rendering, John baptized the peo- 
ple in order that they might reform ; but Peter 
demanded reformation in order to their baptism. 
If he contends that sig means "in order to" in 
both these instances, he makes Peter and John 
contradict each other; if he admits that etq does 
not mean "in order to" in these texts, then he 
yields the argument for baptismal remission so 
far as Acts ii, 38 is concerned. 

It is contended that in Acts ii, 38 the verbs 
"repent" and "be baptized" are connected 
by the conjunction and (zat), and that both of 
them refer to the same subject ("remission of 



128 JUSTIFICATION. 

sins"), hence both of them must hold the same 
relation to the "remission of sins ;" that if re- 
pentance is necessary to remission of sins, then 
baptism must be also. This conclusion does not 
necessarily follow. The mere fact that two verbs 
are connected by a conjunction and refer to the 
same subject is no proof that they hold the same 
relation to that subject. Thus, in the sentence, 
"I paid the price and took the deed for the 
land ;" here paying the price and taking - the deed 
both refer to the ownership of the land ; but 
surely they do not hold the same relation to that 
ownership. Paying the price was necessary in 
order to have a legal right to the land, while 
taking the deed was only taking the legal ac- 
knowledgment of that right. Again: "I con- 
fessed my sins and praised God for pardon." That 
is, confessed in order to pardon, and praised God 
when the pardon was received. Thus repentance 
is necessary in order to having a Gospel right to 
pardon, while baptism is (with the adult) a formal 
acknowledgment of what he has received. 

It is contended that els a<peatv dfiapriwv ("for 
the remission of sins") is a specific phrase, and 
that it always means "in order to the remission 
of sins." These words occur in four places in 
the New Testament, to wit: Mark i, 4; Luke 
iii, 3 ; Matt, xxvi, 28 ; and Acts ii, 38. The 



CONDITION OF JUSTIFICATION. 1 29 

first two of the above mentioned texts refer to the 
baptism of John, and read as follows: "Preach 
(or, preaching) the baptism of repentance for the 
remission of sins." The phrase "baptism of re- 
pentance" is susceptible of two widely distinct 
meanings: thus, it might mean "the baptism or 
washing administered to those who have re- 
pented " of their sins; or, it may mean "the 
baptism, purification, or cleansing of the soul ac- 
companying repentance." If we give it the first 
definition, then we can not translate it " in order 
to the remission," etc. A few reflections will 
make this apparent. John and his followers re- 
garded baptism with water as figurative of the 
purification of the heart, and refused it to those 
who had not repented. Baptism is never men- 
tioned in connection with remission of sins unless 
it is connected with repentance. On the other 
hand, remission is connected directly with re- 
pentance, without any reference at all to baptism. 
"That repentance and remission of sins should 
be preached in his name among all nations." 
(Luke xxiv, 47.) "To give repentance to Israel, 
and forgiveness of sins." (Acts v, 31.) "Then 
hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance 
unto life." (Acts xi, 18.) " Godly sorrow work- 
eth repentance to salvation." (2 Cor. vii, 10.) 
Now, as baptism was not administered before re- 
9 



130 JUSTIFICATION. 

pentance but afterward, and as repentance pro- 
cured the remission of sins, it follows that bap- 
tism could not possibly be "in order to" the 
remission of sins, for the remission accompanied 
the repentance and preceded the baptism. If the 
phrase "baptism of repentance" be defined as 
meaning the purification or cleansing from sin 
which accompanies repentance, it can not possi- 
bly be "in order to" the remission of sins; for 
the forgiveness of sins, although in point of time 
it is coetaneous with the cleansing from sin, yet 
in its natural and logical order it is prior to the 
cleansing or purification. If it is the "ungodly" 
whom God justifies, then it follows as an irresist- 
ible conclusion that when the sinner or "un- 
godly" has been cleansed and become "godly," 
he must be already justified ; for it was when he 
was in his "ungodly" state that God justified 
him. Hence his "baptism" or purification of 
repentance was not in order to remission, but be- 
cause of remission. The third text in which the 
phrase efc ayeaiv dfiaprimv occurs (Matt, xxvi, 28) 
remains to be considered. "This is my blood of 
the new testament, which is shed for many for the 
remission of sins." It is cheerfully admitted that 
the phrase here means " in order to the remission 
of sins;" but it does not follow that it must have 
the same meaning in Acts ii, 38, for few words 



CONDITION OF JUSTIFICATION. 131 

have a wider range of meaning-, and it has already 
been shown the phrase does not necessarily mean 
"in order to." Nay, more than that, it has been 
made evident that in the two preceding instances 
it could not have any such meaning. The shed- 
ding of Christ's blood was absolutely indispen- 
sable to the forgiveness of sins. No human being 
of any age, sex, or race, could be saved without 
Christ's blood. To make baptism as indispen- 
sably necessary to the pardon of sin as the shed- 
ding of the Redeemer's blood is, is to send to 
hell all of the unbaptized of every land, no mat- 
ter what their opportunities, age, repentance, 
faith, or purity may be. The enormity of such 
a proposition stamps its falsity. On the other 
hand, if baptism (unlike the blood of Christ) is 
not indispensable to the forgiveness of sins, then 
the doctrine of baptismal justification falls to the 
ground. The language of Acts ii, 38, forms part 
of the first Gospel sermon to the Jews after 
Christ's death. Let us compare it with the first 
preaching of the Gospel by an apostle to the 
Gentiles. It took place in the house of Cornelius, 
the centurion, of Cesarea. The record of this 
sermon to Cornelius will be found in Acts x, 
34-48; xi, 15-18; and xv, 7—1 1. I will give it 
in parallel columns, so that the reader may com- 
pare the several passages where it occurs. 



132 



JUSTIFICATION. 



Acts x, 34-48. 
" 34. Then Peter 
opened his mouth, 
and said, Of a truth 
I perceive that God 
is no respecter of 
persons : 35. But in 
every nation lie that 
feareth him, and 
worketh righteous- 
ness, is accepted 
with him. 36. The 
word which God 
sent unto the chil- 
dren of Israel, 
preaching peace by 
Jesus Christ : (he is 
Lord of all :) 37. 
That word, I say, 
ye know, which was 
published through- 
out all Judea, and 
began from Galilee, 
after the baptism 
which John preach- 
ed ; 38. How God 
anointed Jesus of 
Nazareth with the 
Holy Ghost and 
with power: who 
went about doing 
good, and healing 
all that were op- 
pressed of the devil ; 
for God was with 
him. 39. And we 
are witnesses of all 
things which he did 



Acts xi, 15-18. 



Acts xv, 7-11. 



CONDITION OF JUSTIFICATION. 



133 



Acts x, 34-48. 
both in the land of 
the Jews, and in 
Jerusalem : whom 
lliey slew and 
hanged on a tree : 
40. Him God raised 
up the third day, 
and shewed him 
openly; 41. Not 
to all the people, 
but unto witnesses 
chosen before of 
God, even to us, 
who did eat and 
drink with him after 
he rose from the 
dead. 42. And he 
commanded us to 
preach unto the 
people, and to tes- 
tify that it is he 
which was ordained 
of God to be the 
Judge of quick and 
dead. 43. To him 
gave all the proph- 
ets witness, that 
through his name 
whosoever belie veth 
in him shall receive 
remission of sins. 

44. While Peter 
yet spake these 
words, the Holy 
Ghost fell on all 
them which heard 
the word. 45. And 



Acts xi, 15-18. 



"15. And as I 
began to speak, the 
Holy Ghost fell on 
them, as on us at 
the beginning. 16. 
Then remembered I 



Acts xv, 7-11. 



"7. Peter rose up 
and said unto them, 
Men and brethren, 
ye know how that 
a good while ago 
God- made choice 
among us, that the 
Gentiles by my 
mouth should hear 
the word of the 
Gospel, and believe. 

8. And God, which 
knoweth the hearts, 
bare them witness, 
giving them the 
Holy Ghost, even 
as he did unto us; 

9. And put no dif- 
ference .between us 
and them, purify- 
ing their hearts by 
faith. 10. Now 
therefore why tempt 
ye God, to put a 
yoke upon the neck 



134 



JUSTIFICATION. 



Acts x, 34-48. 
they of the circum- 
cision which be- 
lieved were aston- 
ished, as many as 
came with Peter, 
because that on the 
Gentiles also was 
poured out the gift 
of the Holy Ghost. 
46. For they heard 
them speak- with 
tongues, and mag- 
nify God. Then 
answered Peter, 47. 
Can any man forbid 
water, that these 
should not be bap- 
tized, which have 
received the Holy 
Ghost as well as we ? 
48. And he com- 
manded them to be 
baptized in the 
name of the Lord." 



Acts xi, 15-18. 
I he word of the 
Lord, how that he 
said, John indeed 
baptized with 
water ; but ye shall 
be baptized with 
the Holy Ghost. 
17. Forasmuch then 
as God gave them 
the like gift as he 
did unto us, who 
believed on the 
Lord Jesus Christ, 
what was I, that I 
could withstand 
God? 18. When 
they heard these 
things, they held 
their peace, and 
gloritijd God, say- 
ing, Then hath God 
also to the Gentiles 
granted repentance 
unto life." 



Acts xv, 7-11. 
of the disciples, 
which neither our 
fathers nor we were 
able to bear? II. 
But we believe that 
through the grace 
of the Lord Jesus 
Christ we shall be 
saved, even as they." 



Iii comparing the justification of Cornelius 
with that of the Jews at Pentecost, let us first 
settle the religious status of Cornelius at the 
time he sends for Peter. He is evidently not an 
impenitent sinner, or he had never sent for Peter 
to show him the way of salvation. More than 
this, he is described as being- not a Jew, but a 
man of another nation. As "devout," "one 
that feared God." One who "gave much alms," 



CONDITION OF JUSTIFICATION. 135 

"and prayed to God always." One whose 
prayer was heard by God. (Acts x, 2, 31.) On 
the other hand, it is equally evident that he had 
not yet obtained the pardon of sin, and been 
adopted as a child of God. This is evident from 
the fact that Peter calls his attention to the ob- 
taining of remission of sins through faith. It 
was not until after Peter had unfolded the plan 
of salvation by faith in Christ that Cornelius 
received the Holy Ghost (in witness to his 
pardon and adoption.) (Acts x, 43, 44, 45.) 
It was not until Peter had preached to him, that 
his repentance was crowned with everlasting life. 
The purification of his heart also accompanied 
the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts x, 18; xv, 
9.) From the foregoing it is evident that at the 
time Peter was sent for, Cornelius was neither an 
impenitent sinner, nor a pardoned believer, but 
a mourner (Matt, v, 4; James iv, 8-10 ; Psalm 
cxvi, 3, 4; 2 Cor. vii, 9-1 1), seeking comfort of 
pardon and adoption. 

In the foregoing narrative note the following 
points: I. Peter preaches. 2. While he preaches 
Cornelius and company receive the gift of the 
Holy Ghost. 3. Peter orders them to be bap- 
tized with water because they have received 
the baptism of the rioly Ghost. "Can any for- 
bid the water to these which have received the 



136 JUSTIFICATION. 

Spirit?" Campbellism asserts that Cornelius 
was not pardoned until after he had been bap- 
tized with water. This assertion is a mere as- 
sumption without even a shadow of proof. It 
involves the absurdity of supposing "that the 
Holy Ghost came upon them, and they were 
recommended by the apostle for Church com- 
munion in consequence thereof, while they were 
in a state of guilt and condemnation ; and more- 
over, that Peter commanded them to be baptized 
[although as Gentiles they of all persons the 
most needed full instruction], without one word, 
so far as the narrative shows, on the subject of 
the 'remission of sins,' as connected with that 
baptism. If we say that they received 'remis- 
sion of sins,' previous to baptism, then the point 
in controversy is fairly surrendered." (Ralston's 
Elements of Divinity, p. 330.) It is urged that 
the gift of the Holy Ghost to Cornelius was not 
the witness of the Spirit to his pardon, but the 
miraculous gift of tongues, etc. And we are 
referred to the case of Caiaphas, the high-priest, 
prophesying concerning Christ (John xi, 49-52), 
as proof that miraculous powers were granted 
to unconverted men. But there is no analogy 
between the two cases. Cornelius was an hon- 
est seeker after truth, Caiaphas was not. Cor- 
nelius had put himself under divine instruction, 



CONDITION OF JUSTIFICATION. 137 

Caiaphas had not. Cornelius praises God, Ca- 
iaphas shows no disposition to do so. Cornelius 
speaks intelligently, Caiaphas utters words, the 
full import of which he does not know. His 
speech was only one of those instances in 
which God causes the wrath of man to praise 
him. Cornelius receives the Holy Spirit because 
of his faith in Christ. Caiaphas has no faith in 
Christ but rejects him. Surely the undesigned 
and unconscious prophecy of Caiaphas can be no 
proof that God gives the intelligent use of the 
miraculous powers of the Holy Spirit to uncon- 
verted men. In order to prove that the gift of 
miraculous powers does not imply either pardon 
or purity of heart, the case of the Corinthian 
Church is sometimes referred to. We are told 
that that Church abounded in miraculous gifts 
more than any other Church, and at the same time 
there was a lower state of spiritual life in it than 
in any other Church. But the reference proves 
nothing to the point. The question is not 
whether miraculous gifts ma) T remain with men 
who once were pardoned and regenerated and 
have gone partially astray; but whether they 
are granted to persons who are unpardoned and 
unpurified. That the members of the Corin- 
thian Church had been justified and were still 
regarded as justified persons at the time Paul 



138 JUSTIFICATION. 

wrote his Epistles to them, is evident from the 
following- quotations from his two Epistles to 
them. The first Epistle is dedicated to "The 
Church of God which is at Corinth, to them 
that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be 
saints." In Chapter i, verse 9, they are des- 
ignated as those that "are called unto the fel- 
lowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord." 
In Chapter iii, verse 16, Paul assures them that 
they "are the temple of God, and that the 
spirit of God" dwelt in them. He uses sim- 
ilar language to them in the Second Epistle, 
vi, 16. In the First Epistle, vi, 11, they are 
called "washed," "sanctified," and "justified;" 
in the Second Epistle, viii, 7, he speaks of them 
as abounding in faith, thus clearly settling the 
fact that the apostle regarded them as "believ- 
ers in Christ," and "children of God," and 
that their miraculous gifts and powers were in 
harmony with their religious life. That the mi- 
raculous gifts of the Holy Spirit were not given 
to unjustified men will be farther evident from 
an examination of Mark ix, 39. "There is no 
man which shall do a miracle in my name that 
can lightly speak evil of me." The apostles had 
found a man casting out demons in the name of 
Christ, and they forbid him because he followed not 
with them. Christ reproved them for hindering 



CONDITION OF JUSTIFICATION. 1 39 

the man, assigning as a reason, that no man do- 
ing a miracle in his name could easily speak evil 
of him. Now, few things are more common 
than for unjustified persons to speak evil of 
Christ. Such conduct is the natural fruit of the 
unregenerate heart. Two conclusions naturally 
follow Christ's words: 1. That no unregenerate 
person can work a miracle. 2. That the work- 
ing of miracles in the name of Christ is to be 
taken as proof that the person performing them 
has been pardoned and purified. The same doc- 
trine is taught in John ix, 31-33: "Now we 
know that God heareth not sinners: but if any 
man be a worshiper of God, and doeth his will, 
him he heareth. Since the world began was it 
not heard that any man opened the eyes of one 
that was born blind. If this man were not of 
God, he could do nothing." The power to 
work miracles was refused to Simon Magus, be- 
cause his heart was "not right in the sight of 
God." (Acts viii, 21.) It matters not so far as 
the argument is concerned whether Simon's sins 
had once been remitted or not. It is sufficient 
for the present instance that he was then "in 
the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity." 
Miraculous gifts were refused him because his 
"heart was not right in the sight of God." 
Thus decisively settling the fact, that miraculous 



140 JUSTIFICATION. 

powers were not given to unconverted men, 
Hence, the use of these powers by Cornelius and 
his company before their baptism with water 
proves them to have been converted men at that 
time. Let us now look at some further evidence 
that Cornelius did receive in the gift of the Holy 
Spirit both the pardon of sin and the purification 
of heart. Let it be noted that Peter had just 
told Cornelius that "whosoever believeth in him 
[Christ] shall receive remission of sins. " Imme- 
diately when they heard this, the Holy Spirit 
was given to them. (Verse 44.) That the 
Holy Spirit was given them because of their 
faith. (Chapter xi, 17; xv, 9.) That the Holy 
Spirit was given them in testimony of their par- 
don, is evident from Acts xi, 15-18, where the 
gift of the Holy Spirit is taken as full proof that 
God had given them "repentance unto life;" but 
there is no life to men under condemnation. 
When God gives repentance unto life then con- 
demnation is taken away, the man is pardoned. 
Cornelius and his company showed before they 
were baptized with water that they had the evi- 
dence that they were pardoned, and accepted of 
God. They not only spoke with tongues, but 
they "magnified God." This is not the work 
of sinners under condemnation, but of believers 
rejoicing in pardon. Corneilus and friends were 



CONDITION OF JUSTIFICATION. 141 

pardoned before baptism, hence the baptism with 
water was not a condition of their pardon. Now 
God dealt with Cornelius and his company in 
the same manner he did with the Jews at Pente- 
cost. The testimony of Peter on this point is 
explicit: "The Holy Ghost fell on them, as on 
us at the beginning." "God gave them the 
like gift as he did unto us who believed on the 
Lord Jesus Christ." God gave "them the Holy 
Ghost, even as he did unto us." "Put no differ- 
ence between us and them, purifying their hearts 
by faith." Note the following items: 1. Cor- 
nelius received the Holy Ghost just as the Jews 
did at Pentecost. 2. Both parties had the same 
faith, and received the same gift. 3. Both par- 
ties repented and received "life." 4. God put 
no difference between the Jews and Cornelius,. 
but purified all their hearts alike by faith. This 
settles the fact that at Pentecost the Jews re- 
pented and received the remission of sins before 
they were baptized. Mark the fact, both Cor- 
nelius and the Jews at Pentecost repented and 
were baptized for the remission of sins. They 
repented in order to pardon, and were baptized 
when they had received pardon. This utterly 
destroys the notion that baptism is a condition 
of pardon. 

It is contended by the advocates of Campbell- 



142 JUSTIFICATION. 

ism that "conversion" and "baptism" are syn- 
onymous and convertible terms. "All these 
testimonies concur with each other in presenting 
the act of faith — Christian immersion, frequently 
called conversion — as that act inseparably con- 
nected with the remission of sins." (Christian 
System, page 197.) Campbell also urges that 
when Peter said "Repent ye therefore, and be 
converted, that your sins may be blotted out" 
(Acts iii, 19), he made precisely the same propo- 
sition that he made at Pentecost when he said, 
"Repent and be baptized." This assertion is 
wholly unwarrantable. It is true that baptized 
persons are spoken of as converted ones ; not be- 
cause baptism means conversion, for it means 
nothing of the kind, but from the fact that (as a 
general thing in orthodox Churches) adults 
are not baptized until they have been converted. 
No two words are more radically different in 
meaning than "baptize" and "convert." No 
Lexicon makes them synonymous. The terms 
"convert" and "conversion" are never men- 
tioned in the Bible in connection with baptism, 
either as leading to it, or as accompanying or as 
resulting from it. 

The advocates of Campbellism quote the fol- 
lowing texts to prove that by baptism we are 
brought into a new state or relation to Christ, 



CONDITION OF JUSTIFICATION. 143 

and thereby come to the remission of sins : 
"Baptizing them in the name of the Father," 
etc. (Matt, xxviii, 19); " Baptized into Christ," 
(Rom. vi, 3); and "Baptized into one body" 
(1 Cor. xii, 13). The quotations from Romans 
and 1 Corinthians refer to the baptism of the 
heart by the Holy Ghost, and the one from the 
apostolic commission is the command for water 
baptism, which is the symbolical and formal ac- 
knowledgment of our baptism by the Holy Spirit. 
And it is by this spiritual baptism that we are 
really brought into the body of Christ. "For 
by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body." 
But it is denied that this text refers to baptism 
by the Holy Spirit; and for this denial the follow- 
ing reasons are assigned : The baptism of the 
Holy Spirit never occurred but in two instances — 
Pentecost, and in the house of Cornelius. This 
is a mere unproven assertion. Moreover, the 
promise is made by Joel (ii, 28, 29) in the name 
of God, "I will pour out my Spirit upon all 
flesh." This is quoted by Peter at Pentecost and 
applied to the baptism of the disciples by the 
Holy Spirit on that occasion, and thus settles the 
fact that God had promised the baptism of the 
Holy Spirit to "all flesh." It is no argument 
against this view of the subject that "all flesh," 
or all men, do not receive this baptism in its 



144 JUSTIFICATION. 

cleansing power. This promise, like many other 
promises of God, is conditional. All men re- 
ceive a measure of its awakening and convicting 
influence, and to those who properly improve 
this, the fuller baptism of its purifying grace is 
given. It is in accordance with this that Christ 
offered the baptism of the Holy Spirit to all who 
would come and receive it. (John vii, 37-39.) 
And in the same strain Isaiah had predicted that 
it would be given to "the thirsty;" that is, to 
those who were thirsting for it. A reference to 
I Cor. xii, 4-12, will show that the words "by 
one Spirit are we all baptized into one body " 
have reference to that work of the Holy Spirit 
on individuals by which it communicated to them 
(not miraculous gifts, but) the purely spiritual 
gifts of "faith," "the word of wisdom," and the 
"word of knowledge." Just such gifts and 
graces as Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Joel had foretold 
would be poured out " upon all flesh ;" just such 
gifts and graces as the one hundred and twenty 
disciples and three thousand converts received at 
Pentecost; and just such as were also received by 
Cornelius and his company. (Acts ii, x, and xi.) 
It is asserted that when Paul wrote his Epistle 
to the Ephesians there was no baptism of the 
Holy Spirit; yet he said to them, there is "one 
baptism." Hence that "one baptism" must 



CONDITION OF JUSTIFICATION. 145 

have been water baptism, and by it they had 
been baptized into the "one body of Christ." 
If the advocates of baptismal remission mean to 
say that the Church at Ephesus did not share in 
the miraculous and purifying gifts of the Holy 
Spirit, they are refuted by Acts xix, 1-6 ; Eph. 
i, 13, 14; iv, 30, where it is said that the be- 
lievers at Ephesus received the "gift of the Holy 
Ghost," which enabled them to "speak with 
tongues," "prophesy," and by which they were 
"sealed unto the day of redemption." We have 
already seen that Spirit baptism is not to be con- 
founded with the miraculous gifts which some- 
times accompanied it, but that its fruits were to 
be found in heart purification, with its attendant 
blessings. In these blessings of Spirit baptism 
the Church at Ephesus shared freely. They had 
been blessed "with all spiritual blessings;" they 
had been "made nigh by the blood of Christ;" 
God, through his Spirit, dwelt in them; they 
were "light in the Lord." (Eph. i, 3; ii, 13, 19, 
22; v, 8.) 

Baptism with water does not create a new re- 
lation between the believer and Christ, but ac- 
knowledges the relation which has already been 
created by other means. Thus, the baptism of 
the Israelites unto Moses was not the creation of 
a new relation between them and him, but the 



I46 JUSTIFICATION. 

confirmation of the relation which had already 
been created in Egypt. The baptism of Corne- 
lius and company with water was a visible con- 
firmation of the relation to Christ into which they 
had been brought by the baptism of the Holy 
Ghost. Their bodies were "washed with pure 
water" because their hearts had been "sprinkled 
from an evil conscience." And these Corinthians 
were baptized into the one body of Christ by the 
Holy Spirit, and they received water baptism as 
a visible confirmation of that fact. 

Ephesians v, 25, 26: "Christ also loved the 
Church, and gave himself for it; that he might 
sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water 
by the word." This text is often quoted in sup- 
port of baptismal remission. The text is only 
another instance in which the symbol, "water," 
is put for the reality, the Holy Spirit. The sacred 
writers often attribute to the symbol what properly 
belongs to the spiritual substance. Thus, in 
Ezekiel xxxvi, 25, the cleansing of the heart is 
attributed to the water, the symbol of the 
cleansing agency. In Psalm li, 7, the same thing 
is symbolized by, and attributed to, the purifying 
with "hyssop." In the same manner Paul is 
commanded to submit to a formal washing away of 
his sins in baptism as a public acknowledgment 
of the cleansing he had already received from the 



CONDITION OF JUSTIFICATION. 1 47 

Holy Ghost. Thus the Church is formally 
cleansed with the baptism of water, while the 
real cleansing is through the baptism of the Holy 
Spirit poured out upon it. I close this answer 
with the following pertinent reflections from Cal- 
vin's Inst., Lib. IV, Cap. 15, Sec. 2: "Baptism 
promises us no other purification than by the 
sprinkling of the blood of Christ, which is em- 
blematically represented by water, on account 
of its resemblance to washing and cleansing. 
Who, then, can pretend that we are cleansed by 
that water which clearly testifies the blood of 
Christ to be our true and only ablution ? So that 
to refute the error of those who refer all to the 
virtue of the water, no better argument could be 
found than in the signification of baptism itself, 
which abstracts us as well from that visible ele- 
ment which is placed before our eyes as from all 
other means of salvation, that it may fix our 
minds on Christ alone." 

Romans vi, 17, 18, is also quoted in favor of 
baptismal remission. It reads thus : ' ' But God be 
thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye 
have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine 
which was delivered you. Being then made free 
from sin, ye became the servants of righteous- 
ness." It is claimed that " the form of doctrine" 
means baptism, and that obeying this from the 



148 JUSTIFICATION. 

heart means submitting to baptism. But all this 
is pure assumption. Before this text can sustain 
the doctrine of baptismal remission it must be 
made to appear that the Romans were pardoned 
in or by baptism; that the "old man" is cruci- 
fied only in baptism; and that obeying " from the 
heart " means being baptized. It is sometimes 
claimed that the comments of Macknight and Wes- 
ley sustain the idea that this " form of doctrine " 
means baptism. To dissipate this error I will 
give Macknight's Commentary on the text, also 
his foot-note: "By thus speaking I do not insin- 
uate that ye have made yourselves slaves to sin ; 
on the contrary, I thank God, that although for- 
merly ye were the slaves of sin, ye have willingly 
obeyed the mold of doctrine into which ye were 
cast at your baptism. And that being set free 
from the slavery of sin by your faith, ye have 
voluntarily become the slaves of righteousness, 
whom therefore ye ought to obey." Foot- 
note. — "Yet ye have obeyed from the heart the 
mold of doctrine into which ye were delivered. 
The original words must be supplied and con- 
strued in the following manner: unrjxuugars: t* xap- 

dia- rvTZov 8tda^<; i efc o< tutzov Sida^q izapadod^rt '. 

1 Ye have obeyed from the heart the mold of doc- 
trine, into which mold of doctrine ye were de- 
livered.' The original word tuxo<;, among other 



CONDITION OF JUSTIFICATION. 149 

things, signified a mold into which melted metals 
were poured to receive the form of the mold. 
The apostle represents the Gospel doctrine as a 
mold into which the Romans were put by their 
baptism in order to their being fashioned anew. 
And he thanks God that 'from the heart/ that 
is, most willingly and sincerely, they had yielded 
to the forming efficacy of that mold of doctrine, 
and were made new men both in principle and 
practice." 

In the foregoing quotation notice the following 
items: 1st. It was "the form of doctrine" which 
these Romans had obeyed. 2d. It was their 
obedience to this "form of doctrine" which set 
them free from the slavery of sin and made them 
the servants of righteousness. 3d. This " form 
of doctrine " was not their baptism, but the mold 
of doctrine which they received, or into which 
the}* were cast, at the time of their baptism. 
4th. It was their obedience (not to baptism, but) 
to this doctrine, that freed them from the slavery 
of sin and made them servants of righteousness. 
Wesley's views are briefly stated thus : " Intimat- 
ing that our minds, all pliant and ductile, should 
be conformed to the Gospel precepts as liquid 
metals take the figure of the mold into which 
they are cast." (Notes, in loco.) 

An argument in behalf of baptismal remis- 



150 JUSTIFICATION. 

sion has been founded on the language of Ana- 
nias to Paul: "And now why tarriest thou? 
arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, 
calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts xxii, 
1 6.) It is contended that Paul's sins were washed 
away in and by baptism. Concerning the words 
"be baptized and wash away thy sins," see the 
remarks upon Ephesians v, 26. Also the fol- 
lowing note from Dr. Lindsay, one of the trans- 
lators of Olshausen's Commentary : "The utmost 
that can be inferred from the words of Ananias 
is that baptism and the pardon of sin are in some 
way connected, but not that the mere act of 
baptism of itself in any case cleanses from the 
guilt of sin. If Paul had received baptism in 
hypocrisy, without any conviction in his mind 
respecting the power of Christ, or any trust in 
Christ, not only would the water of baptism not 
have cleansed him from sin, but it would greatly 
have aggravated his guilt. On the other hand, 
if, while truly believing in Christ, he had been 
placed in circumstances where it was not possible 
for him to be baptized — confined, for example, 
as a prisoner, and cut off from all intercourse 
with the Church — he would, notwithstanding the 
want of baptism, have enjoyed the pardon of his 
sins. The blessing would not have tarried till 
the opportunity of receiving baptism occurred. 



CONDITION OF JUSTIFICATION. 15 I 

Being justified by faith, he would have had peace 
with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." 

Campbell has presented to the world the fol- 
lowing grammatical rule: "The active participle 
in connection with an imperative either declares 
the manner in which the imperative shall be 
obeyed, or explains the meaning of the com- 
mand." Apply Campbell's rule to Paul's case, 
and it effectually removes every thought of bap- 
tismal remission. In the text we have two verbs 
which are in the imperative mood middle voice — 
"be baptized," this is followed by the verb 
"wash away." This latter verb is followed by 
the active participle "calling." Thus the sins 
were not actually washed away by the baptism, 
but by the " calling on the name of the Lord." 
His prayers were an expression of the faith 
which he had in Christ and tended to increase 
that faith. The instruction to wash away his 
sins by prayer was in perfect harmony with the 
general tenor of Scripture promise and precept. 
Thus,' "And it shall come to pass, that whoso- 
ever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be 
delivered." (Joel ii, 32.) "Whosoever shall 
call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." 
(Acts ii, 21; Rom. x. 13.) "Pray God, if per- 
haps the thought of thine heart may be for- 
given thee." (Acts viii, 22.) "I said I will 



152 JUSTIFICATION. 

confess my transgressions unto the Lord ; and 
thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin." (Psalm 
xxxii, 5.) "He that covereth his sins shall not 
prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh 
them shall have mercy. (Prov. xxviii, 13.) 
"Forgive us our sins." (Luke xi, 4.) "If we 
confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive 
us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unright- 
eousness." (1 John, i, 9.) This mass of Bibli- 
cal testimony on the efficacy of prayer (as an 
instrument) to cleanse from sin is sustained by 
the experience of the entire Christian world in 
all ages, and in all places; and effectually settles 
the fact that it was prayer and not baptism that 
procured the remission of Paul's sins. It has 
been objected that "calling on the name of the 
Lord" must mean something more than prayer, 
for Christ says, "Not every one that saith unto 
me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of 
heaven ; but he that doeth the will of my Father 
which is in heaven." (Matt, vii, 21.) A suffi- 
cient answer to this objection is, that Christ was 
not denying the efficacy of prayer in the forgive- 
ness of sin; but simply refusing that prayer 
which was not accompanied by the right state 
of the heart. 

Another evidence that Paul was converted 
before his baptism by Ananias is found in the 



CONDITION OF JUSTIFICATION. 153 

fact that he received the gift of sight and was 
filled with the Holy Ghost before he was bap- 
tized with water. "And Ananias went his way, 
and entered into the house; and putting his 
hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even 
Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as 
thou earnest, hast sent me, that thou mightest 
receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy 
Ghost. And immediately there fell from his 
eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight 
forthwith, and arose, and was baptized." (Acts 
ix, 17, 18.) The gift of the Holy Ghost is not 
made to the unjustified. I add, as worthy of 
special attention, Dr. Whedon's notes on these 
verses: ''There fell — i\nanias had put his hand 
upon him (verse 12), Saul received the Holy 
Ghost (verse 17), and what followed? The re- 
generate and Spirit-filled Saul burst away the 
bondage produced upon his external sense. 
Very probably during the three days the humors 
had dried upon his eye-balls, and, as the abound- 
ing of his spirit quickened the whole man, the 
the scale-like particles fell from his eyes, thus 
forming a striking emblem of his renewed spirit- 
ual eyesight. . . . The baptism in this case 
was preceded by faith, justification, regenera- 
tion by the Holy Spirit, and even the special 
bestowment of the Holy Ghost. It follows the 



154 JUSTIFICATION. 

regenerating affusion of the Spirit as the phys- 
ical picture of a spiritual operation — the water 
outpouring imaging the Spirit outpouring." 

As it is not uncommon for the advocates of 
baptismal remission to quote the note of John 
Wesley on Acts xxii, 1 6, as being in their favor, 
I will give the note entire for the purpose of 
making some reflections upon it. It reads thus: 
"Be baptized and wash away thy sins. Baptism 
administered to real penitents is both a means 
and seal of pardon. Nor did God ordinarily in 
the primitive Church bestow this on any unless 
through this means." In considering this note, 
it should be kept in mind constantly that Mr. 
Wesley was a firm believer of the doctrine of 
"justification by faith only;" and that this doc- 
trine excludes all idea of baptism as a condition 
of pardon. Furthermore, in his note just quoted, 
he does not call baptism a condition of pardon, 
but a "means." What are we to understand by 
this word "means?" Let Mr. Wesley explain 
hmiself: "There are means of grace, that is, out- 
ward ordinances whereby the inward grace of God 
is ordinarily conveyed to man ; whereby the faith 
that brings salvation is conveyed to them who 
before had it not." (Works, Vol. Ill, 168.) 
Hence Mr. Wesley's view is, that baptism, besides 
being an external and visible seal of pardon, may 



CONDITION OF JUSTIFICATION. 1 55 

also be used by penitent seekers as a means of 
receiving that faith by which they can be justi 
fied. The only point in Mr. Wesley's note 
which is open to criticism is the statement that, 
in the primitive Church, God did not ordinarily 
bestow pardon except through this means. The 
correctness of this position may be doubted. 

Another passage used in behalf of "baptis- 
mal remission" is John iii, 5: "Except a man 
be born of water and of the Spirit, he can not 
enter into the kingdom of God." In order that 
the subject may be presented in its clearest light, 
I will give the text in its connection (verse 3) : 
"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man 
be born again, he can not see the kingdom of 
God. 4. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a 
man be born when he is old? Can he enter the 
second time into his mother's womb, and be 
born? 5. Jesus answered, Verily, Verily, I say 
unto thee, Except a man be born of water and 
of the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom 
of God. 6. That which is born of the flesh is 
flesh; and that which is born of the spirit is 
spirit. 7. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye 
must be born again. 8. The wind bloweth where 
it listeth, and thou nearest the sound thereof, but 
but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither 
goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." 



156 JUSTIFICATION. 

Since the days of Calvin there has been more 
or less controversy about the meaning of the 
phrase "born of water." Calvin departed from 
the ancient and universal interpretation (that it 
meant baptism), and interpreted it of the sancti- 
fying, refreshing, and sustaining influences of the 
Holy Spirit (See his Inst. Vol. II, p. 515.) 
This interpretation has been taken up and de- 
fended by a number of divines; especially Rice 
in his debate with Campbell (pp. 448-451), and 
Dr. Hodge in his Theology. (Vol. Ill, 591-595.) 
With all due respect to the learning, ability, 
and integrity of these men, we feel constrained 
to dissent from this interpretation, as novel, un- 
sound, and dangerous. We do not question the 
purity of their motives; on the other hand, we 
must remember that no truth of God can be 
sustained by the perversion of some other truth. 
Dr. Rice urges that Christian baptism is never 
called a birth. This objection is without force, 
unless it could be proved that there was some- 
thing in baptism which forbid it being associated 
with the new birth. This will hardly be at- 
tempted. Dr. Rice urges that if this phrase re- 
ferred to Christian baptism "Christ could not 
have blamed Nicodemus for not understanding 
it, for Christian baptism was not then instituted. 
But as Christ did reprove Nicodemus for not 



CONDITION OF JUSTIFICATION. 157 

understanding it, it follows that it did not refer 
to baptism." Although Christian baptism was 
not yet instituted, yet Nicodemus could not be 
ignorant of the numerous baptisms of the Mo- 
saic ritual (Heb. ix, 10), nor of the baptism of 
John, nor of that practiced by the disciples of 
Christ. From these sources he had all the light 
necessary to an understanding of Christ's words. 
Nicodemus was not perplexed over Christ's allu- 
sion to baptism, but with the spiritual nature 
of the new birth. It is contended that "water" 
and its kindred terms are often used to desig- 
nate the sanctifying influences of the Holy 
Ghost. But it does not follow that, because they 
are so used, this phrase "born of water" does 
not mean water baptism. On the contrary, 
such a usage in other parts of the Bible would 
only tend to make it an appropriate term, to 
designate that cleansing of the body which was 
emblematic of the spiritual cleansing of the soul. 
It is in harmony with this that John speaks of 
baptism with water, and baptism of the Holy 
Ghost. And that Paul speaks of the "washing 
of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy 
Ghost." It is claimed that the phrase "born 
of water" is of similar import with that of 
"baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with 
fire." This can not be maintained until it can 



158 JUSTIFICATION. 

be shown that "fire" was applied to men by 
law and usage for the purpose of symbolical 
cleansing, just as water was. I know of but one 
instance of "fire" being applied to the body as 
a symbol of purification, namely, in the case of 
the prophet. (Isa. vi, 6, 7.) 

Here the whole scene was extraordinary and 
out of God's usual course. And there is no 
proof of its ever having been made a standing 
symbol of personal purification ; while water Avas 
the common symbol of purification, and that by 
divine appointment. "The kingdom of God" 
upon earth has its spiritual reality and its ex- 
ternal form. The entrance into this spiritual 
form is through or by the birth of the spirit; 
the entrance into its external form is by baptism, 
or the birth of water. Hooker (v, 59, 3,) asserts 
that for the first fifteen centuries no one ever 
doubted its application to baptism. (M'Clintock 
and Strong, Vol. I, p. 643.) Wall, in his "His- 
tory of Infant Baptism," Vol. II, p. 180, says 
"all the ancient Christians (without the excep- 
tion of one man) understood it of baptism." 

In this conversation the subject of Christ's 
discourse was the "new birth," "regeneration," 
or "change of heart," as essential to the enter- 
ing of the kingdom of God. The conversation 
presents the following points: 1. The necessity 



CONDITION OF JUSTIFICATION. 159 

of the new birth stated. 2. The failure of Nic- 
odemus to understand. He had been used to 
speaking of proselytes as being "born again;" 
but he could not understand in what sense he, a 
Jew, needed to be born again. 3. Christ an- 
swers by setting forth a birth of water as essen- 
tial to his entering the visible Church, and 
makes it the symbol of that inward spiritual 
change needed in order to a man's entering the 
spiritual kingdom. That the birth of water is 
connected with the external kingdom, and was 
not essential to his entering the internal king- 
dom, is evident from the fact that while the 
spiritual birth is often referred to in the words 
"born again," and "born of the spirit" (see 
verses 3, 5, 6; 7, 8), and insisted upon, the birth 
of water is never more mentioned. 4. The new 
birth, or regeneration, is nowhere spoken of as 
the consequence of water baptism, and that 
man's impurity is never attributed to his not 
having been baptized. When Christ compares 
the impurity of the natural birth with the purity 
of the other, he does not contrast the natural 
birth with the birth of water, but with the birth 
of the spirit. 5. The mystery connected with 
the new birth (verses 7, 8) proves that it was 
not baptism. The new birth is hidden, while 
water baptism by any mode is open and plain. 



l6o JUSTIFICATION. 

Another text quoted by advocates of Camp- 
bellism is Mark xvi, 16: "He that believeth 
and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth 
not shall be damned." That this text does not 
teach baptismal remission is evident from several 
reasons: I. In the text, faith precedes baptism, 
and those who believe are justified without wait- 
ing for baptism. Proof: "He that believeth is 
not condemned." (John, iii, 18.) "He that 
heareth my word, and believeth on him that 
sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come 
into condemnation; but is passed from death 
unto life." (John v, 24.) These texts admit 
of no delay between faith and justification; but 
make them coetaneous. The believer has parted 
company with his unbelief and condemnation at 
once, and, casting himself on Christ in faith, 
enters at once into a state of justification. 2. 
The text does not threaten damnation to the 
failure to be baptized, as it does to the failure to 
believe ; a thing that it surely would do if bap- 
tism were essential to pardon. It has been said in 
reply to this, that it was not necessary to say that 
those who were not baptized should be damned ; 
for if they believed they would be baptized, 
and if they did not believe their baptism would 
not avail. But this is putting the issue in a false 
light. The question is not whether a believer 



CONDITION OF JUSTIFICATION. l6l 

will or will not be baptized, but whether the 
pardon of a believing penitent is dependent upon 
his baptism, as it is upon his faith. If it is, then 
the unbaptized believer is damned just as cer- 
tainly as though he were an unbeliever. A be- 
liever may, and probably would, be very willing 
to be baptized, and yet any one of a host of 
circumstances might put it out of his power to 
be baptized. His failure to be baptized might 
be no possible fault of his, and yet if baptism be 
as essential to his pardon as faith is, then he 
must die unforgiven; it is needless to say that 
the text does not teach any such doctrine. 
There is not a passage in the Word of God 
which threatens damnation to a failure to be 
baptized. The honest conclusion from such a 
condition of things is, that baptism is not a con- 
dition of pardon. 

Another passage quoted in favor of baptismal v 
remission is I Peter, iii, 21 — "The like figure 
whereunto, even baptism, doth also now save us 
(not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but 
the answer of a good conscience toward God), by 
the resurrection of Jesus Christ." That Peter 
does not mean to teach salvation from sin through 
the baptism of the body is evident from his ex- 
plicit statement that it is not by "the putting 
away the filth of the flesh." These words stand 



1 62 JUSTIFICATION. 

as an indestructible wall of separation between 
the doctrine of the apostle and the notion of bap- 
tismal remission. The apostle states that in a 
figure baptism saves us. He guards this by 
specifically stating that it is not the baptism of 
the body, "but the answer of a good conscience 
toward God." Concerning the meaning of these 
words, " the answer of a good conscience toward 
God," there has been, and still is, no small con- 
troversy. The meaning of them is confessedly 
obscure. They have been understood as refer- 
ring to the answer returned by the candidates to 
questions propounded to them at their baptism, 
such as " Dost thou renounce the devil and all his 
works?" But to this view there are two objec- 
tions: 1st. It is by no means certain that the 
custom of questioning the candidates for baptism 
was in vogue in the apostle's day. 2d. Even if 
such a custom existed in that day, the reference 
of these words to that custom will not agree with 
the other portion of the text. Thus, it is by this 
"answer of a good conscience" that we are 
saved ; but surely we are not saved by the an- 
swers made by us at our baptism. The word 
iizspwr-qiia does not occur elsewhere in the New 
Testament, and only once in the Septuagint 
(Dan. iv, 14), where Trommius defines it by 
pctitio, petition or prayer. This sense would well 



CONDITION OF JUSTIFICATION. 1 63 

suit the context. Define inep 6rrjixa by petition 
or prayer, and the text would read, "The like 
figure whereunto even baptism doth also now 
save us (not the putting away the filth of the 
flesh, but the prayer- of a good conscience toward 
God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (See 
M'Clintock and Strong's Cyclopaedia, Vol. I, 
page 244, and Calvin's Institutes, Book 3, Chap. 
19, Sec. 15.) This accords with the declaration 
of both prophet and apostle, "Whosoever shall 
call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." 
It is in harmony with the instruction given by 
Ananias to Paul at his baptism, "to wash away 
his sins, calling on the name of the Lord." 
Prayer, then, and not the baptism of the flesh, 
was the means of salvation set forth by Peter. 

Titus iii, 5 : "Not by works of righteousness 
which Ave have done, but according to his mercy 
he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and 
the renewing of the Holy Ghost." This text is 
quoted in support of the dogma of baptismal re- 
mission. The phrase, "washing of regenera- 
tion," is figurative, and is borrowed from the 
custom of washing the new-born infant. As this 
washing could not precede the birth but must fol- 
low it, so baptism is not an antecedent of the new 
birth, but follows it. In the text our salvation is 
denied being the consequence of any work of 



1 64 JUSTIFICATION. 

ours; — "not by works of righteousness which 
we have done." But baptism of the body (in 
whatever form it may be administered) is a work 
of ours, hence can not be the condition of 
our salvation. It is sometimes attempted to 
evade this by saying that in baptism we are pas- 
sive, and that the work belongs to the adminis- 
trator. To this it is a sufficient reply, that while 
our bodies are the passive recipients in the mere 
mechanical act of baptism, still, the question 
whether we will be baptized or not is settled by 
an act of our own will, and in that sense our 
baptism is a "work of righteousness which we 
have done," and as such the apostle denies that 
it saves us. Being baptized is an act of obedience 
on our part, while our being regenerated is not 
our act, but the work of the Holy Spirit. 

I will close this argument by a quotation from 
the notes of Albert Barnes on this text, which, 
though lengthy, will amply repay an attentive 
reading: 

" 'By the washing of regeneration.' In order 
to a correct understanding of this important pas- 
sage, it is necessary to ascertain whether the 
phrase here used refers to baptism, and whether 
any thing different is intended by it from what is 
meant by the succeeding phrase, 'renewing of 
the Holy Ghost.' The word rendered washing 



CONDITION OF JUSTIFICATION. 165 

(Xourpdv — loiitroti) occurs in the New Testament 
only in this place and in Eph. v, 26, where also 
it is rendered washing — 'That he might sanctify 
and cleanse it [the Church] with the washing of 
water by the word.' The word properly means 
a bath ; then water for bathing ; then the act of 
bathing, washing, ablution. (Passow and Robin- 
son.) It is used by Homer to denote a warm or 
cold bath, then a washing away, and is thus ap- 
plied to the drink-offerings in sacrifice which were 
supposed to purify or wash away sin. (Passow.) 
The word here does not mean laver, or the vessel 
for washing in, which would be expressed by 
Xourijp — louter, and this word can not be properly 
applied to the baptismal font. The word in 
itself would naturally be understood as referring 
to baptism (comp. Notes on Acts xxii, 16), 
which was regarded as the emblem of washing 
away sins, or of cleansing from them. I say it 
was the emblem, not the means, of purifying the 
soul from sin. If this be the allusion — and it 
seems probable — then the phrase ' washing of re- 
generation ' would mean ' that outward washing 
-or baptism which is the emblem of regeneration,' 
and which is appointed as one of the ordinances 
connected with salvation. See Notes, Mark xvi, 
16, 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be 
saved.' It is not affirmed in this phrase that 



1 66 JUSTIFICATION. 

baptism is the means of regeneration, or that 
grace is necessarily conveyed by it, and still less 
that baptism is regeneration, for no one of these 
is a necessary interpretation of the passage, and 
should not be assumed to be the true one. The 
full force of the language will be met by the sup- 
position that it means that baptism is the emblem 
or symbol of regeneration, and if this is the case, 
no one has a right to assume that the other is 
certainly the meaning. And that this is the 
meaning is further clear because it is nowhere 
taught in the New Testament that baptism is re- 
generation, or that it is the means of regeneration. 
The word rendered regeneration (TzaUyy^taia — 
palingcnesid) occurs in the New Testament only 
here and in Matt, xix, 28 — ' In the regeneration 
when the Son of man,' etc. It means, properly, 
a new birth, reproduction, or renewal. It would 
properly be applied to one who should be begot- 
ten again in this sense, that a new life was com- 
menced in him in some way corresponding to his 
being made to live at first. To the proper idea 
of the word, it is essential that there should be 
connected the notion of the commencement of 
life in the man, so that he may be said to live 
anew ; and as religion is in the Scriptures repre- 
sented as life, it is properly applied to the begin- 
ning of that kind of life by which man may be 



CONDITION OF JUSTIFICATION. 1 67 

said to live anew. This word, occurring only 
here and in Matt, xix, 28, and there indubitably 
not referring to baptism, should not be here un- 
derstood as referring to that, or be applied to 
that, for (1) that is not the proper meaning of 
the word; (2) there is no Scripture us^age to sanc- 
tion it ; (3) the connection here does not demand 
it ; (4) the correlatives of the word (see John hi, 
3, 5, 6, 8; 1 Peter i, 3) are applied only to that 
great moral change which is produced by the 
Holy Ghost; and (5) it is a dangerous use of the 
word. Its use in this sense leaves the impression 
that the only change needful for man is that which 
is produced by being regularly baptized. On 
almost no point has so much injury been done in 
the Church as by the application of the word re- 
generation to baptism. It affects the beginning 
of religion in the soul, and if a mistake is made 
there it is one which must pervade all the views 
of piety. 

' ' 'And renezving of the Holy Ghost. ' This 
is an important clause, added by Paul apparently 
to save from the possibility of falling into error. 
If the former expression, 'the washing of re- 
generation,' had been left to stand by itself, it 
might have been supposed, possibly, that all the 
regeneration which would be needed would be 
that which would accompany baptism. But he 



1 68 JUSTIFICATION. 

avoids the possibility of this error by saying that 
the 'renewing of the Holy Ghost' is an indispen- 
sable part of that by which we are saved. It 
is necessary that this should exist in addition to 
that which is the mere emblem of it — the wash- 
ing of regeneration — for without this the former 
would be unmeaning and unavailing. It is im- 
portant to observe that the apostle by no means 
says that this always follows from the former, nor 
does he affirm that it ever follows from it, what- 
ever may be the truth on that point, but he as- 
serts that this is that on which our salvation 
depends." 

OBJECTIONS TO THE DOGMA OF BAPTISMAL 
REMISSION. 

I will close this review of the dogma of bap- 
tismal remission by presenting some objections: 

I. If baptism is a condition of pardon, 
then the apostles never received the remission 
of their sins. Offensive as this thought is, never- 
theless it is unavoidable if the notion of baptis- 
mal" remission be true. According to Camp- 
bell ism there was no Christian Church before 
Pentecost. The advocates of the system are 
divided among themselves on the question 
whether there was any Church of any kind be- 
fore Pentecost. But they are a unit in asserting 



CONDITION OF JUSTIFICATION. 169 

that the Jewish institution (as they call it) was 
utterly dissimilar to, and distinct from, the 
Christian Church. On this theory, such a thing 
as Christian baptism before Pentecost was utterly 
impossible. The case stands thus: According 
to the system, John's baptism brought no man 
to Christ, or into his Church. Christ did not 
administer water baptism to his apostles. 
"Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his 
disciples." (John iv, 2.) The apostles (Paul ex- 
cepted) never received water baptism, neither 
before or after Pentecost. Hence, if Campbell- 
ism be true, the apostles never received the re- 
mission of sins. A doctrine necessitating such 
a conclusion can not be true. 

2. Another objection to this dogma is founded 
on 1 Cor. i, 13-15: "Is Christ divided? was 
Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in 
the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized 
none of you, but Crispus and Gaius ; lest any 
should say that I had baptized in mine own name." 
It is cheerfully acknowledged that when Paul 
wrote these words he was not discussing the de- 
sign of baptism, nor the condition of pardon ; 
but Avas endeavoring to correct the disposition 
or tendency to division, which existed in the 
Corinthian Church. The bearing of these words 
upon the question at issue is not direct but inci- 



170 JUSTIFICATION. 

dental, nevertheless it is strong. It is not pos- 
sible that the apostle could have rejoiced and 
have given thanks that he had not administered 
to them an ordinance which was a condition of 
pardon, or which was essential to the obtaining 
of pardon; but he does give thanks that he had 
not baptized them; hence, baptism could not 
have been a condition of pardon. No thoughts 
concerning men ever filled the apostle's heart so 
completely, or so constantly, as those of the ne- 
cessity of their reconciliation with God and the 
means by which this was to be accomplished. 
He said of himself and fellow apostles, "we are 
embassadors for Christ, as though God did be- 
seech you by us; we pray you in Christ's stead, 
be ye reconciled to God." (2 Cor. v, 20.) He 
made himself all things to all men, and became 
the servant of all in the single hope that he 
might save some. (1 Cor. ix, 19-22.) It was 
his constant effort that he might please all men, 
in all things, that they might be saved. (1 Cor. 
x, 33.) His heart's desire and prayer to God 
for Israel was, that they might be saved. The 
thought of man's enmity to God, made him 
weep (Phil, iii, 18); and so intense was his de- 
sire for their salvation, that if it was necessary 
in order to its accomplishment, he was willing to 
suffer under the curse as Christ did. Nor was 



CONDITION OF JUSTIFICATION. 171 

this a mere temporary excitement with the apos- 
tle. From the hour of his conversion until that 
of his glorious martyrdom, the salvation of souls 
was with him a ruling" passion. Can it be pos- 
sible that an apostle governed by such thoughts 
during the whole of his Christian life could have 
thanked God that he had not administered to 
men an ordinance, the reception of which by 
them was necessary in order to their salvation? 
In order to place this still more certainly in its 
proper light, let us substitute either repentance 
or faith, in the place of baptism, in the apostle's 
language, and mark the effect. Repentance and 
faith are both recognized as necessary in order to 
pardon. Now could we conceive of a Christian 
apostle as thanking God that he had never led 
any person to repentance, or to faith? Such a 
thought is wholly inadmissible. Why? Because 
these things are necessary in order to the salva- 
tion of the sinner; and it is the sole work of 
such an apostle to do any thing and every thing 
that is necessary in order to lead men to Christ. 
But the apostle did thank God that he did not bap- 
tize these Corinthians (save the few named), and 
the conclusion is irresistible that baptism is not 
necessary in order to pardon. 

3. A third objection to the theory of baptis- 
mal remission is found in the fact that it intro- 



1/2 JUSTIFICATION. 

duces confusion in the operation of the plan of 
redemption. According to the theory, faith pu- 
rifies the heart, repentance reforms the life, and 
baptism procures the pardon of sin. Now, thou- 
sands of persons repent of their sins, and be- 
lieve in Christ, but die without the privilege of 
being baptized. Dying in this condition what 
becomes of them? With purified hearts, and 
reformed lives, are they sent to hell? Hell is no 
place for pure hearts. Christ says pure hearts 
"shall see God." Are they admitted to heaven 
condemned and unpardoned? This can not be. 
Neither the Bible nor the system of Campbell- 
ism makes any provision for the pardon of their 
sins after death; hence (if the dogma of baptis- 
mal remission be true), the plan of redemption 
is involved in hopeless confusion. "God is not 
the author of confusion," and a system so preg- 
nant with confusion can not be the work of God. 
4. A fourth objection to the notion of baptis- 
mal remission is found in the fact that it de- 
mands a condition of pardon, with which a large 
host of believing penitents can not possibly com- 
ply. Thousands die yearly, on the ocean, on 
desert plains, in hospitals, in jails and prisons, 
and on the field of battle, where either (often 
both) the water or the administrator is not to 
be had. If baptism be a condition of pardon, 



CONDITION OF JUSTIFICATION. 173 

then all such persons must be lost, no matter 
how genuine their repentance, or how strong 
their faith. It can not be possible that God has 
made a condition of salvation which would ren- 
der the salvation of so many utterly impossible. 
In Heb. vii, 25, Jesus is said to be "able also to 
.save them to the uttermost that come unto God 
by him." This passage teaches the ability and 
willingness of Jesus to save with a perfect salva- 
tion all who come to God by him, and this at 
any time, at any place, and under any circum- 
stances. This text preaches the Gospel of a full 
salvation to dying sinners in any and every 
emergency of time, place, or condition. It is 
salvation to each and every one who will plead 
the name of Jesus with God for mercy. But 
such glorious offers could not be true if salvation 
was dependent upon baptism by human hands. 
A dogma which contravenes such important and 
blessed promises of the Gospel can not be true. 
5. A fifth objection to the dogma of baptis- 
mal remission is found in the fact that it makes 
the salvation of the soul dependent upon the will 
of man, and thus subverts the foundations of 
both civil and religious liberty. If my pardon 
is conditional upon my baptism with water, then 
it is also dependent upon the will of the human 
administrator; for without his consent I can not 



174 JUSTIFICATION. 

have baptism, hence can not have pardon. But 
God has not put my salvation at the disposal of 
any human agency. Our birth into the king- 
dom is "not of blood, nor of the will of the 
flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." 
(John i, 13.) Now, as our water baptism is in- 
disputably dependent upon the will of man, it 
can not be a condition of our salvation, for that 
is wholly independent of any will but that of 
God and ourselves. 






VI. 

OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF "JUSTIFI- 
CATION BY FAITH ONLY." 

HAVING examined and rejected the notion 
of baptismal justification, let us now turn 
our attention to the proposition that ' ' faith is the 
only condition of justification. " But before en- 
tering on the examination of the direct proof of 
this doctrine we will spend some time in answer- 
ing various objections that are made to it. 

I. I will state an objection as it is quoted by 
Dwight: "Faith is so far from being of a moral 
nature as to be necessary and unavoidable, man 
being absolutely passive in believing, and under 
a physical impossibility of doing otherwise than 
he actually does, whether in believing or disbe- 
lieving. Of course, an attribute governed wholly 
by physical necessity can never recommend us 
to God, much less become the ground of so im- 
portant a blessing as justification." (Theol., Vol. 
II, p. 312.) In answer to this objection we sub- 
mit the following thoughts : 

The Bible demands our faith in two particu- 



I76 JUSTIFICATION. 

lars. First, it demands that we believe the testi- 
mony of God concerning the plan of salvation ; 
second, it demands that we trust in Christ as our 
personal Savior. Let us examine each of these 
separately. 

First. It demands that we believe the testimony 
of God concerning the plan of salvation. Now, 
it is cheerfully admitted that when the truth of a 
proposition is clearly presented to the mind the 
mind can not do otherwise than assent to it. 
Thus, when it is proven to the mind that the sum 
of the angles of a triangle is equal to two right 
angles, the mind can not do otherwise than assent 
to it. In the same manner, when an object is so 
placed within the range of vision that an image 
of it falls upon the retina, a person can not help 
seeing it. Still, it does not follow from either of 
these truths that a man is entirely passive in re- 
gard to what he sees or believes. A student is 
told to turn his eyes in a certain direction and he 
will see a book ; now, if he turn his eyes so that 
the image of the book comes in contact with the 
retina, he can not help seeing the book ; but if 
he closes his eyes, or refuses to turn them in the 
proper direction, then he can not see the book. 
It must be evident in either case that the student 
is not a mere passive subject. If he sees the 
book it is because he chose to look in the direc- 






OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 1 77 

tion prescribed ; his eye was a passive recipient 
of the reflected image, but he was a free and act- 
ive agent in the act of turning his eye toward the 
book. If he did not see it it was because he 
chose to do otherwise than he was directed to. 
It is the same with the mind concerning the 
belief of a proposition or doctrine. Thus, the 
attention of a pupil is directed to the proof of the 
proposition that 5/64=4. If he attend to the 
elaboration of the proof he can not help believ- 
ing the proposition. If he does not attend to 
the proof he may be left in doubt concerning the 
truth of the proposition. In this case, while the 
mind of the pupil may be a passive recipient of 
the proof and of the conviction which follows, 
it nevertheless is free and active in attending, or 
refusing to attend, to the proof of the proposi- 
tion, and his failure to believe the proposition 
would be reprehensible. The truths of revela- 
tion, along with the evidences of their credibility, 
are spread before men, and they are urgently in- 
vited to examine them. An impartial examina- 
tion of them can not fail of resulting in deep 
conviction of their credibility. But men fail to 
examine, hence fail to believe, and their failure 
to believe is censurable. Mark the fact, their 
failure to believe arises, not from the insufficiency 
of evidence, but from their inattention to the 



178 JUSTIFICATION. 

evidence existing. The examination of this ob- 
jection has proceeded so far upon the supposition 
that the belief or unbelief of the person was a 
purely mental process, entirely disconnected with 
either inclinations or prejudices ; but this will not 
hold good in the question of the belief or un- 
belief of the Bible. In the cases before alluded 
to, the existence of the book, or the fact that 
the 1/64=4, would not be likely to affect the 
peace or happiness of the student. But if he 
was credibly assured that when it was proven to 
him that 4 was the cube root of 64 he would suf- 
fer some great misfortune, he would likely be 
very unwilling to enter into or attend to the ex- 
amination of the proof. Concerning the belief 
of men in the Bible, if the Bible be true, then all 
men stand condemned. It convicts them of 
wrong and they deserve to die. They are hold- 
ing their lives at the mere mercy of God. They 
can have no hopes for the future without being 
pardoned and purified. These propositions are 
not acceptable to unconverted men, and they are 
not inclined to investigate their truth. They feel 
that if the Bible is true, then they are wrong, and 
their future is dark. Under the influence of this 
feeling men do not investigate the truthfulness of 
the Bible ; they do not wish to believe it ; they 
would rather that it was not true ; their want of 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 179 

faith in it is governed by their inclination and 
will, and their unbelief is a just cause of pun- 
ishment. 

This becomes plainer when we come to con- 
sider the second particular in which the Bible de- 
mands our faith, namely, our trust in Christ as 
our personal Savior. Men do not wish to be con- 
vinced that Christ is their only Savior. They 
feel that the sinlessness of his life is a reproach to 
them. They do not wish to contrast their im- 
purity with his purity. They are not willing to 
submit themselves to him as their sovereign 
ruler. They are humiliated by the thought that 
they are dependent upon him for the pardon of 
their sins. Their unbelief concerning Christ is 
not a mental impossibility for the want of evi- 
dence, but a voluntary rejection of him because 
of hatred, and is a just ground for their pun- 
ishment. 

The fact that man is a voluntary agent in the 
work of believing does not conflict with the prop- 
osition that in the work of believing he needs 
and receives divine aid; this will be discussed 
hereafter. 

2. A second objection I quote from Alex- 
ander Campbell: "In examining the New Testa- 
ment we find that a man is said to be 'Justified 
by faith' (Rom. v, 1; Gal. ii, 16; iii, 24); 'Jus- 



180 JUSTIFICATION. 

tified freely by his grace' (Rom. iii, 24; Titus iii, 
7);' 'Justified by his blood' (Rom. v, 9); 'Justi- 
fied by works' (James ii, 21, 24, 25); 'Justified 
in or by the name of the Lord Jesus' (1 Cor. 
vi, 11); 'Justified by Christ' (Gal. ii, 16); 'Justi- 
fied by knowledge' (Isa. liii, 11); 'It is God that 
justifies' (Rom. iii, 33); namely, by these seven 
means, by Christ, his name, his blood, by knowl- 
edge, grace, faith, and by works. Are these all 
literal? Is there no room for interpretation 
here? He that selects faith out of the seven 
must either act arbitrarily or show his reason; 
but the reason does not appear in the text. He 
must reason it out; he must infer it. Why then 
assume that faith alone is the reason of our jus- 
tification?" (Christian System, p. 247.) 

In the proposition that "faith is the only 
condition of justification," there is no reference 
to any part that God has to do in our justifica- 
tion, the reference is wholly to the condition to 
be complied with on the part of man; hence any 
reference to texts referring to God's share in our 
justification is wholly foreign to the question. 
Of the seven causes of our justification quoted 
by Campbell from the New Testament, one, faith, 
is the condition insisted upon by the orthodox 
Churches as the only condition, hence needs no 
notice at present. Another cause, "works" 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. l8l 

(James ii, 24), will be made the subject of 
special consideration. The remaining five causes 
all refer to the part which God takes in our jus- 
tification, and are therefore foreign to the point 
in debate. Thus: " Justified freely by his grace." 
Reference is here made to the grace of God as 
the originating cause of our justification, and it 
has no reference to any condition on our part 
whatever. Again, the "blood" refers to no 
condition on our part but to the blood or suffer- 
ings of Christ as the instrumental cause. The 
"knowledge" is Christ's own personal knowl- 
edge fitting him for the work of redemption, 
and as such has no reference to the condition to 
be complied with by us. "The name of the 
Lord Jesus" is the authoritative cause of our 
pardon, but expresses no obligation of ours. 
"Justified by Christ" points to no duty of ours, 
but points to Christ as the author of our forgive- 
ness. Campbell strenuously contends that bap- 
tism is a condition of justification; but is it not 
significant that baptism is not mentioned as one 
of the conditions of justification, he himself be- 
ing judge? 

3. It is objected that the doctrine of justifica- 
tion by faith only cuts off or separates from 
faith all the virtues or graces of repentance and 
obedience, and encourages men to hope for 



1 82 JUSTIFICATION. 

pardon on the condition of faith alone, without 
any reference to either repentance or obedience. 
This objection is answered by Wesley: "It 
would be so if we spake, as some do, of a faith 
which was separate from these: but we speak of 
a faith which is not so, but necessarily produc- 
tive of all good works, and all holiness." 

"The proper answer to the objection that jus- 
tification by faith alone leads to licentiousness, is 
that 'though we are justified by faith alone,' the 
faith by which we are justified is not alone in the 
heart which exercises it. In receiving Christ, as 
the writers of the Reformation often say, ' faith 
is so/a, yet not solitaria.'' It is not the trust of a 
man asleep and secure, but the trust of one 
awakened and aware of the peril of eternal death 
as the wages of sin; it is not the trust of a man 
ignorant of the spiritual meaning of God's holy 
law, but of one who is convinced and ' slain ' by 
it; not the trust of an impenitent, but of a peni- 
tent man ; the trust of one, in a word, who feels, 
through the convincing power of the Word and 
Spirit of God, that he is justly exposed to wrath, 
and in whom this conviction produced a genuine 
sorrow for sin, and an intense and supreme desire 
to be delivered from its penalty and dominion." 
The truthfulness of this answer will be more ap- 
parent when we come to consider the nature of 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 1 83 

the faith which justifies. If justifying faith should 
be found to be not merely the simple belief of 
testimony, but, on the contrary, a penitent and 
affectionate trust in Christ, and attended by humil- 
ity, hatred of sin, and a desire of purity, then 
tin's objection falls to the ground." (See Nature 
of Justifying Faith. 

I will close this answer with the following ex- 
tract from the " Homilies of the Church of Eng- 
land," pages 19 and 2J : "And therefore St. Paul 
declareth here nothing upon the behalf of man 
concerning his justification but only a true and 
lively faith, which, nevertheless, is the gift of 
God, and not man's only work without God. 
And yet, that faith doth not shut out repentance, 
hope, love, dread, and the fear of God, to be 
joined with faith in every man that is justified, 
but it shutteth them out from the office of justi- 
fying; so that, although they be all present in 
him that is justified, yet they justify not al- 
together." 

Another objection to the doctrine of "justifi- 
cation by faith only " is founded upon the state- 
ment of James that "a man is justified by works 
and not by faith only." In order that the reader 
may have the case fairly before him, I will quote 
the whole of the passage upon which the 
objection is founded. It is found in James ii, 



1 84 JUSTIFICATION. 

17-24: "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is 
dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou 
hast faith, and I have works : shew me thy faith 
without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith 
by my works. Thou believest that there is one 
God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, 
and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, 
that faith without works is dead? Was not Abra- 
ham our father justified by works, when he had 
offered Isaac his son upon the altar ? Seest thou 
how faith wrought with his works, and by works 
was faith made perfect? And the Scripture was 
fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and 
it was imputed unto him for righteousness : and 
he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then 
how that by works a man is justified, and not by 
faith only." 

In answer to this objection we submit the sug- 
gestion, that even if it were impossible to har- 
monize the text with the doctrine of justification 
by faith as taught by Paul, still we would not be 
warranted in rejecting that doctrine because of 
the text. We call attention to the following 
canon of interpretation: "A passage in which a 
doctrine is slightly treated must be explained by 
one where the subject is more largely discussed ; 
and one single passage is not to be explained in 
contradiction to many others, but consistently 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 1 85 

with them." (Home's Introduction, Vol. I, 
p. 407.) The same canon, substantially, is given 
by Dr. Angus in his "Bible Hand-book," p. 204. 
Paul, in his Epistles to the Romans and Gala- 
tians, discusses the question of justification at 
length, and unanswerably proves that faith is its 
only condition. James makes but an incidental 
reference to it ; hence we are not to interpret 
Paul by James, but vice versa, we must interpret 
James by Paul. The single declaration of James 
that "by works a man is justified, and not by 
faith only," must not be allowed to set aside the 
oft repeated declarations of Paul, to wit, that 
' ' by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be 
justified ;" " We are justified freely by his grace;" 
that God is the "justifier of him which believeth 
in Jesus ;" "That a man is justified by faith with- 
out the deeds of the law;" that "Abraham be- 
lieved God, and it was counted unto him for 
righteousness;" that "to him that worketh not, 
but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, 
his faith is counted for righteousness ;" that justi- 
fication "is of faith, that it might be by grace;" 
that "being justified by faith we have peace with 
God ;" " Knowing that a man is not justified by 
the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus 
Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ that 
we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and 



186 JUSTIFICATION. 

not by the works of the law ; for by the works 
of the law shall no flesh be justified;" "But that 
no man is justified by the law in the sight of God 
it is evident, for the just shall live by faith ;" 
"But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, 
that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might 
be given to them that believe." (Rom. iii, 20, 
24, 26, 28; iv, 3, 5, 16; v, 1; Gal. ii, 16; iii, 
11, 22.) It is cheerfully granted that James and 
Paul are both inspired apostles, of coequal author- 
ity, and on this very ground we submit it that 
the solitary text in James can not cancel this 
overwhelming testimony of Paul to the fact that 
we are justified by faith. 

But we are not under the necessity of ignoring 
the statement of either apostle. James and Paul 
do not conflict with each other in the slightest 
degree. On an impartial examination of the text 
in James, it will be found to harmonize freely and 
fully with the doctrine of justification by faith 
only as taught by Paul. In order to point out 
the perfection of this harmony, we call attention 
to the following particulars: 

I. "The two apostles do not engage in the 
same argument, and for this reason, that they are 
not addressing themselves to persons in the same 
circumstances. St. Paul addresses the unbeliev- 
ing Jews, who sought justification by obedience 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 187 

to the law of Moses, moral and ceremonial ; 
proves that all men are guilty, and that neither 
Jew nor Gentile can be justified by works of obe- 
dience to any law, and that therefore justification 
must be by faith alone. On the other hand, 
St. James, having to do in his Epistle with such 
as professed the Christian faith and justification 
by it, but erring dangerously about the nature of 
faith, affirming that faith, in the sense of opinion 
or mere belief of doctrine, would save them 
though they should remain destitute of a real 
change in the moral frame and constitution of 
their minds, and give no evidence of this in a 
holy life, it became necessary for him to plead 
the renovation of man's nature and evangelical 
obedience as the necessary fruits of real or living 
faith. The question discussed by St. Paul is 
whether works would justify ; that by St. James 
is whether a dead faith — the mere faith of assent — 
would save." (Watson.) 

2. James speaks of the justification of Abra- 
ham by the offering of Isaac. This is a totally 
different matter from that justification of Abra- 
ham in which his faith was imputed to him for 
righteousness, and upon which Paul builds his 
argument in proof of justification by faith only. 
The two justifications, different from each other 
both in substance and meaning, were also nearly 



1 88 JUSTIFICATION. 

thirty years apart in time. As the apostles were 
writing about subjects so widely different from 
each other, it seems impossible for them to con- 
tradict each other. 

3. The two apostles do not use the word 
"faith " in the same sense. The Pauline doctrine 
of the faith which justifies is,~that it is not a sim- 
ple decision of the intellect, but it is the work of 
the heart. (Rom. x, 10.) It is also "the fruit 
of the Spirit " (Gal. v, 22); it is not a mere idle 
notion, but it is a working force (1 Thess. i, 3 ; 
2 Thess. i, 11); it works by love (Gal. v, 6); it 
is a hearty trust in Christ as a personal Savior 
(Acts xvi, 31) ; by it " Christ dwells in the heart " 
(Eph. iii, 17) ; in the words of Peter, accepted by 
Paul, it purines the heart (Acts xv, 9-12) ; it fills 
the heart with " all joy and peace " (Rom. xv, 13) ; 
it is imputed to us by God for righteousness 
(Rom. iv, 3-12); it obtains the "seal," or "wit- 
ness," of the Spirit (Eph. i, 13). In broad con- 
trast with this is the faith spoken of by James 
when he says that "by works a man is justified, 
and not by faith only." James speaks of this 
"faith" as being "without works" (verse 18), 
as being "dead " (verses 17, 20, 26), and as being 
down on an equality with the faith of demons 
(verse 19). He distinguises very clearly between 
the faith which "is dead" and which does not 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 1 89 

justify, and the faith which does justify. In broad 
contrast with this dead, inoperative faith, he in- 
troduces the faith of Abraham, which was not 
without works, but which produced resignation 
and obedience to the divine will as its fruits. 

The two apostles do not use the word " jus- 
tify" in the same sense. "The justification of 
which St. Paul treats, and which he says is ' not 
of works ' but ' by faith,' is the forgiveness of sins 
granted to ' the ungodly ' who, as yet, worketh 
not any thing acceptable to God, and who there- 
fore can not, in any sense or degree, be justified 
by works. But that of which St. James treats, 
and which he says is ' not by faith Only ' but ( by 
works also,' is, as we have seen, subsequent to 
the forgiveness of sins, and implies not the par- 
doning of a sinner, but the approval of a faithful 
servant of God in a day of severe trial." (Hare.) 
James speaks of Abraham being justified by the 
offering of Isaac; but Abraham was justified 
(pardoned) long before this time. Before Isaac 
was born, it is said in Gen. xv, 6, that Abraham 
"believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him 
for righteousness." Here we have Abraham's 
faith, God's acceptance of it, and Abraham's 
justification. After a lapse of thirty years God 
commanded Abraham to offer up Isaac as a sacri- 
fice, and Abraham's ready compliance with the 



I9O JUSTIFICATION. 

command "justified" him in his profession of 
righteousness. 

It proved or demonstrated him to be right- 
eous. There are two or three other instances in 
Scripture, in which the word "justify" is used 
in this sense. Thus, in Isa. xliii, 9: "Let them 
bring forth their witnesses, that they may be 
justified." That is, let them prove their right- 
eousness by witnesses. Matt, xi, 19: "But wis- 
dom is justified of her children." Wisdom is 
here personified, and her claims to excellence are 
proven true and right by the conduct of her 
children. 1 Tim. iii, 16: "Justified in the Spirit." 
This is spoken of Christ. When he was upon 
earth he promised to send the Holy Spirit to 
convince the world, etc. (John xv, 26, xvi, 
7-1 1 ; Acts i, 4, 5, 8.) In making this promise, 
Christ claims the authority and power of the 
supreme God; for no being but God could speak 
in this manner of his relation to the Holy Spirit. 
When the Holy Spirit came in its convicting 
and sanctifying power at Pentecost and since, it 
justified Christ, or demonstrated him to be right- 
eous in claiming the power to send it. In the 
same sense, Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac in obe- 
dience to the divine command justified him, or 
demonstrated his righteousness. 

"The works by which St. Paul maintains that 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. I9I 

a man is not justified are the faithless works of 
an unbeliever, who, not submitting- to the right- 
eousness of God, goes about to establish his own 
righteousness. But the works by which St. 
James insists that a man is, in his sense, justi- 
fied, are the works which spring from that faith 
by which he is previously, in St. Paul's sense, 
justified. 'I will show thee my faith,' says he, by 
my Works.' (James ii, 18.) And having intro- 
duced the case of Abraham, he adds, " Seest 
thou how faith wrought with his works, and by 
works was faith (which he already possessed, 
'made perfect,' James ii, 22." (Hare.) 

Although James makes only an incidental ref- 
erence to the forgiveness of Abraham, that 
reference proves his forgiveness to have been by 
faith only. As has already been pointed out, 
the purpose of James was to show that a mere 
dead faith could not save men : and that the 
faith which was imputed to us for righteousness 
was one productive of good works. He does 
this by first pointing out the barren nature of a 
"dead" faith. (Verses 14-17, 19, 20, 26.) In 
contrast with this, he sets forth the fruitful na- 
ture of the faith of Abraham. It was necessary 
for James to prove: I. That Abraham had faith. 
2. That his faith was acceptable to God, and 
that because of it Abraham was justified. 3. 



I92 JUSTIFICATION. 

That Abraham's faith was not "dead" or "idle," 
but bore evidence of its vitality in a life of res- 
ignation and obedience. That he gave special 
evidence of its power in his willingness to offer 
up Isaac. 4. That Abraham's offering Isaac "jus- 
tified" him, or proved that his profession of faith 
in the Lord was a righteous profession. From 
the foregoing analysis of the subject, it becomes 
evident that the argument of James rests upon 
two pillars: I. That Abraham's faith was ac- 
cepted by God, and because of it he was justified 
or forgiven. 2. That Abraham proved the char- 
acter of his faith by his works. Ncflv it is evi- 
dent that if we take away from this argument 
of James the proof that Abraham's faith pro- 
cured the forgiveness of his sins, then the whole 
argument falls to the ground. This point is vital 
to the apostle's argument; and he proves it by 
quoting Gen. xv, 6, from the Septuagint, "Abra- 
ham believed God, and it was imputed unto him 
for righteousness." (Verse 23.) So that instead 
of James contradicting the doctrine of "Justifi- 
cation by faith only," he establishes it by evi- 
dence which can not be gainsaid, or refuted. 
At the same time, by his criticism on the nature 
of faith, he effectually guards it against all anti- 
nomian and licentious perversion. This also 
proves the harmony of Paul and James. 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 1 93 

To the notion of justification by works, Dr. 
Ralston makes the following- plain and forcible 
answer. "As justification means pardon, then, 
as the Scriptures declare, 'God justifieth the un- 
godly, ' for none others can need pardon. Hence, 
we must be pardoned before we become right- 
eous by personal obedience or inherent holiness ; 
therefore, we can not be justified by those works 
of obedience which none but the righteous can 
perform. This would be to require us to do, in 
order to justification, what can only be done by 
such as are already justified, which is absurd. 

If we are justified by works at all, these 
works must either embrace perfect obedience to 
the law of God, or they must not; if they do, 
then the law can demand no more, and we have 
no need for the death of Christ; if they do not, 
then we can not be justified by them ; for the 
law saith, 'Cursed is every one who continueth 
not in all things which are written in the book 
of the law to do them.' 

"If we are justified by faith and works taken 
together, then these works must be either per- 
formed before or after justification. If they are 
performed before justification, then they must be 
performed while we are in unbelief, ' for all that 
believe are justified;' and if in unbelief, they 
must be sinful, for ' whatsoever is not of faith is 



J94 JUSTIFICATION. 

sin,' and if so, it would follow that we are justi- 
fied by sin, which is absurd." 

Another objection to the doctrine of justifica- 
tion by faith only is founded on those Scriptures 
which represent repentance as being necessary in 
order to justification; namely, "Repent and be 
baptized . . . for the remission of sins ;" 
"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that 
your sins may be blotted out." (Acts ii, 38; 
iii, 19.) It is urged that these texts, and others 
of similar import, make repentance essential to 
justification ; hence justification can not be by 
faith only. To this objection I submit an answer 
in the following propositions : 

1. Repentance does not justify unless it pro- 
duces fruit — "bring forth therefore fruits meet 
for repentance." (Matt, iii, 18.) If the repent- 
ance of these men was sufficient for their pardon 
without "fruits," then John was asking for some- 
thing superfluous; if their repentance without 
fruit was not sufficient, then the fruit was 
necessary. 

2. The fruit of repentance which causes it to 
justify is faith. The followers of Mr. Campbell 
are strenuous in their assertion that faith must 
precede repentance ; but this is not the Biblical 
order. It is cheerfully conceded that some belief 
in the existence of God and in the plan of salva- 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. I95 

tion generally, perhaps always, precedes repent- 
ance ; still, the faith which unites the soul to 
Christ and secures its justification is the "fruit" 
of repentance. Justifying faith is the hearty trust 
of the soul in Christ, and can not possibly exist 
previous to the person having repented of his 
sins. The Bible invariably represents faith as 
flowing from repentance. Witness the following 
texts: "Ye, when ye had seen it, repented not 
afterward, that ye might believe him." (Matt. 
xxi, 32.) Here faith is conditioned on a prevening 
repentance. "Repent ye, and believe the Gos- 
pel;" "John verily baptized with the baptism of 
repentance, saying unto the people that they 
should believe on him which should come after;" 
"Repentance toward God and faith toward our 
Lord Jesus Qhrist;" "Repentance from dead 
works, and faith toward God." It is scarcely 
conceivable that the Bible would observe so 
closely this order in the statement of repentance 
and faith unless repentance was necessary in order 
to faith, and hence, in the nature of things, must 
precede it. And it is only as necessary to the 
existence of faith that repentance is necessary to 
justification. I subjoin the following from Mr. 
Wesley : 

"Though it be allowed that both this repent- 
ance and its fruits are necessary to full salvation, 



ig6 JUSTIFICATION. 

yet they are not necessary either in the same 
sense with faith or in the same degree. Not in 
the same degree, for these fruits are necessarily 
conditional, if there be time and opportunity for 
them, otherwise a man may be sanctified without 
them ; but he can not be sanctified without faith. 
Likewise, let a man have ever so much of this 
repentance, or ever so many good works, yet all 
this does not at all avail, he is not sanctified till 
he believes; but the moment he believes, with 
or without these fruits, yea, with more or less 
of this repentance, he is sanctified. Not in the 
same sense, for this repentance and these fruits 
are only remotely necessary — necessary in order 
to the continuance of his faith as well as the in- 
crease of it — whereas faith is immediately and 
directly necessary to sanctification. It remains 
that faith is the only condition which is immedi- 
ately and proximately necessary to sanctification. " 
(Sermons, Vol. I, p. 390.) The points made in 
this quotation from Wesley concerning the rela- 
tion of repentance and faith to sanctification 
will apply with full force to their relation to justi- 
fication, which precedes sanctification in the order 
of events. 






VII. 

ARGUMENTS IN PROOF OF THE DOCTRINE OF 
"JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ONLY." 

i. Faith is the only possible condition of re- 
covery from the fall caused by the unbelief of 
Eve. God said to Adam, concerning "the tree 
of the knowledge of good and evil," "in the 
day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." 
In direct contradiction of this, the serpent said, 
"Ye shall not surely die." Had Eve maintained 
her confidence and trust in God, she would not 
have heeded the falsehoods of the devil. Had 
she kept her faith in God, she would not have 
eaten of the forbidden fruit. Her first act of 
disobedience was clearly the result of her unbe- 
lief. "Here sin began; namely, unbelief. 'The 
woman was deceived,' says the apostle. She 
believed a lie : she gave more credit to the word 
of the devil than to the word of God. And un- 
belief brought forth actual sin." (Wesley's 
Works, Vol II, 32.) " Did not Eve stand in 
Paradise so long as she forbore eating of the 
forbidden fruit? Did she not forbear eating so 

197 



I98 JUSTIFICATION. 

long as she believed the truth, that is, so long 
as she believed she should die if she ate of 
that fruit? Would she have sinned if she had not 
first believed a lie, yea, swallowed down a cluster 
of lies? 'That she should not die; the fruit was 
as good as it was fair; it was to be desired to 
make one wise; she would be as God,' etc.; were 
not these untruths, freely entertained in her heart, 
the causes of her committing the direful deed?" 
(Fletcher's Works, Vol. I, 545.) Eve fell 
through unbelief; and unbelief is today the 
cause of sin. It is impossible that there should 
be any reconciliation with God, until unbelief is 
gone, and the soul has faith in God. This dis- 
belief of God brings man into a state of con- 
demnation. "He that believeth not shall be 
damned." "He that believeth not God hath 
made him a liar." A general principle, applicable 
to the conduct of men toward God in all ages. 
''He that believeth not is condemned already. " 
(Mark xvi, 16; I John v, 10; John ill, 18.) 
Now the opposite of condemnation is justifica- 
tion ; the opposite of unbelief is faith ; hence, if 
unbelief brought man into condemnation, faith is 
the appropriate means of removing that condem- 
nation, and of securing his justification. Unbe- 
lief is sin and merits death; on the other hand, 
faith is not a virtue or excellence which merits 



ARGUMENTS IN PROOF. 1 99 

eternal life. But as unbelief separated between 
man and God, and thus shut man off from the 
fountain of life; so, God has graciously appointed 
faith in Christ as the bond which shall reunite 
man to God, and thus restore man to life. It is 
idle to talk about reconciling man to God, so long 
as he has no faith in God. On the other hand, 
the moment man regains his faith in God, that 
moment he and God are reconciled, he is at 
peace with God, and the divine love is shed 
abroad in his heart. "He that believeth on 
him is not condemned;" "he hath everlasting 
life, and shall not come into condemnation; but 
is passed from death unto life." (John iii, 18; 
v, 24.) Mark the fact, these texts promise man 
a freedom from condemnation the moment he 
believes in God. Their language is explicit. 
The believer "is not condemned," but "hath 
passed from death unto life." In order to evade 
the force of this decisive testimony, it has been 
objected that believers do not have eternal life 
in possession, but only in anticipation. The ob- 
jection is based upon a misinterpretation of two 
texts: Rom. ii, 7, and Matt, xxv, 46, where be- 
lievers are exhorted to seek for "eternal life," 
and at the day of judgment are said to "go 
away into eternal life." But it is useless to 
quote texts which promise eternal life to the be- 



200 JUSTIFICATION. 

liever in the future. The promise of life in the 
future can not neutralize the equally positive 
promise of a present possession. Christ has 
affirmed that the believer "hath eternal life." 
Furthermore, the eternal life into which the be- 
liever enters at the judgment day is the perfec- 
tion of that eternal life which begins with him 
the moment he believes on Christ. The instant 
a penitent believes in Christ the sense of con- 
demnation is taken away, God's love is shed 
abroad in his heart, his heart is purified, he has 
peace with God. All these things are the work 
of the Spirit in the heart, they are the "earnest 
of the Spirit." Eternal life on earth is the ris- 
ing of the Sun of righteousness in the heart; 
eternal life in heaven is the light and blessedness 
of the Sun of righteousness in its meridian 
glory. But Campbell answers his own objection 
(although in doing so, he contradicts himself), 
Christian System, p. 1 86. "While Christians are 
taught to expect and hope for a future salva- 
tion — a salvation from the power of death and 
the grave, a salvation to be revealed in the last 
time — they receive the first fruit of the Spirit, 
the salvation of the soul from guilt, pollution, 
and the dominion of sin, and come under the 
dominion of righteousness, peace, and joy." I 
add another extract from page 185: "And here 



ARGUMENTS IN PROOF. 201 

it ought to be clearly and distinctly stated that 
there is a present and a future salvation, of which 
all Christians are to be partakers. The former 
is properly the salvation of the soul, and the 
latter is the salvation of the body, at the resur- 
rection of the just. There are few- professing 
Christianity, perhaps none, who do not expect a 
future salvation — the glory of salvation to be 
revealed in us at the last time. Peter, who uses 
this expression in the beginning of his first epis- 
tle, and who invites the saints to look forward to 
the salvation yet future, in the same connection 
reminds them that they have now received the 
salvation of the soul." 

It is sometimes objected that something more 
than faith is required, in order to justification, 
and the case of certain Jews is cited (John xii, 
42) who believed on Christ, but did not confess 
him,- hence could not be justified. The case 
cited is not apposite to the argument. In the 
forty-third verse, these persons are said to have 
"loved the praise of men more than the praise 
of God." This conclusively shows that the faith 
of these persons belonged to the intellect alone, 
and did not come from the heart. It was not 
the fruit of repentance, hence did not entitle the 
owner to pass from death unto life, as all per- 
sonal faith in Christ does. 



202 JUSTIFICATION. 

2. The depravity of man renders any condi- 
tion of justification other than faith impossible. 
" Now we know that what thing soever the law 
saith, it saith to them who are under the law: 
that every mouth may be stopped, and all the 
world may become guilty before God. There- 
fore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh 
be justified in his sight: for by the law is the 
knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness 
of God without the law is manifested, being wit- 
nessed by the law and the prophets ; even the 
righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus 
Christ unto all and upon all them that believe ; 
for there is no difference : for all have sinned 
and come short of the glory of God." (Rom. 
iii, 19-23.) From this passage the following 
points are legitimately deduced : I. Every man 
is guilty, condemned, and left without excuse be- 
fore God. 2. Past disobedience and present de- 
pravity effectually prevent him being justified by 
deeds of moral law. 3. In this extremity God 
displays a way of pardon. 4. This pardon or 
justification is to all who believe in Jesus Christ. 
The testimony of the 22d verse is explicit. In 
this passage justification is denied to every thing 
except faith, and it is expressly promised to faith, 
hence it is by faith only. Campbellites some- 
times try to show that justification by faith is not 



ARGUMENTS IN PROOF. 203 

incompatible with the idea of justification by 
works. To do this they quote John vi, 27-29, 
where Christ speaks of faith as a "work." The 
whole force of this objection lies in the equivocal 
meaning they put on the term "work." In the 
theological proposition that "works are not a 
condition of justification, " the term "works" is 
used to designate moral duties or external actions 
as conditions of justification, whereas in the text, 
as spoken by Christ, the term " work" does not 
designate any external act, but that act of the 
soul by which it trusts in Christ. When Christ 
told them to labor for the meat that endureth 
unto everlasting life, they misunderstood him, 
and supposed that he was enjoining on them 
some of the external duties of the Mosaic law. 
Christ corrected this by telling them that "the 
work" of God was the believing in him. In 
saying this, he does not class faith with the ex- 
ternal duties of the law, but speaks of it as that 
act or work of the mind which unites the mind to 
Christ. Olshausen's comment on this text is 
very fine: "From the many works to which the 
Jews, in accordance with their legal bias, referred, 
Jesus points them to the one thing needful, 
whereby alone all the works of man are hallowed, 
namely, faith in the Son of God. With a fine al- 
lusion to the epya he terms it epya r. d., faith being 



204 JUSTIFICATION. 

not only pleasing to God, but also performed by 
means of his grace, and thus being a work of 
God in the soul of man. To this work the Jews 
did not attain through their inward restlessness 
and their efforts to perform works of many 
kinds." Our opponents, in their anxiety to 
classify faith with the external works of the law, 
are really arraying Christ and the Apostle Paul 
against each other. They insist that Christ classed 
faith with the works of the law, while Paul teaches 
that a man can not be justified by works be- 
cause of his depravity, but thaf he is justified 
by faith. 

That we are justified by faith only is proven 
by the fact that we are justified by grace, and not 
by works. In this argument note the following 
points: I. We are justified by grace — "Being 
justified freely by his grace " (Rom. iii, 24) ; "Ye 
are saved by grace through faith " (Eph. ii, 8). 
2. Justification by grace excludes works of every 
kind — "Now to him that worketh is the reward 
not reckoned of grace, but of debt " (Rom. iv, 4) ; 
" If by grace, then is it no more of works ; other- 
wise work is no more work" (Rom. xi, 6). The 
foregoing settles the point that justification being 
by grace excludes works of every kind. The 
followers of Mr. Campbell contend that the term 
"faith" includes all the works of evangelical 



ARGUMENTS IN PROOF. 205 

obedience. They freely admit that it excludes 
the works of the Mosaic ritual and of the moral 
law, but think that such works as repentance and 
baptism are included under the idea of "faith." 
Others of the same sect, desirous of reaching the 
same end, assert that the term "faith" does not 
indicate the personal faith of the man, but simply 
the Gospel, and that it should be spoken of as ■ ' the 
faith." A sufficient answer to this last notion is 
found in the fact that in such texts as "ye are 
saved by grace through faith," and "being justi- 
fied by faith," the term "faith" has always been 
understood by the Church as indicating a per- 
sonal, heart-felt trust in the Redeemer. In the 
texts above cited, works of the old law, either 
ritualistic or moral, and the evangelical obedience 
of the New Testament, are all alike excluded from 
the office of justification, and this leaves faith as 
the only condition of pardon. 

Faith apprehends and appropriates the blood 
of Christ. "Being justified freely by his grace 
through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus ; 
whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation 
through faith in his blood, to declare his right- 
eousness for the remission of sins that are past, 
through the forbearance of God ; to declare, I 
say, at this time his righteousness, that he might 
be just, and the justifier of him which believeth 



206 JUSTIFICATION. 

in Jesus. (Rom. iii, 24-26.) This text sets 
forth the blood of Christ, also called a "redemp- 
tion," "propitiation," etc., as the ground of our 
justification. We receive the benefits of this 
sacrificial blood through faith. An appeal to 
sacrificial blood for pardon, to be received through 
our faith in that blood, cuts off every thing but 
faith as a condition of pardon. If it be said that 
we expect pardon through the purifying influence 
of faith upon our hearts, or through the obedi- 
ence which will spring from it, then it is the ex- 
cellence of heart or obedience of life, and not the 
sacrificial blood, in which we trust. But may we 
not trust in heart purity, evangelical obedience, 
and the blood altogether for pardon ? No ! 
When the appeal is made to the blood of a 
vicarious sacrifice for pardon, that very act is 
itself a confession not only of our guilt, but also 
of the absence of any excellence, either of heart 
or life, by which we could merit forgiveness. It 
is a confession that we deserve to die for our 
sins, and that our only hope of deliverance is in 
the expiatory sufferings of another ; but the text 
suspends our pardon on our "faith in his blood," 
thus shutting off all idea of pardon by morality, 
heart purity, or evangelical obedience, and making 
faith the only condition of our justification. 



ARGUMENTS IN PROOF. 207 



ABRAHAM S JUSTIFICATION THE PATTERN OF OURS. 

Romans iv, I— II, 20-25: "What shall we then say- 
that Abraham, our father as pertaining to the flesh, hath 
found ? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath 
whereof to glory, but not before God. For what saith the 
Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted 
unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh, is 
the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt; But to 
him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth 
the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even 
as David also describeth the blessedness of the man unto 
whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saving, 
Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose 
sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord 
will not impute sin. Cometh this blessedness then upon 
the circumcision only, or upon the un circumcision also? 
For we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for right- 
eousness. How was it then reckoned ? when he was in 
circumcision, or in uncircumcision ? Not in circumcision, 
but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of cir- 
cumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which 
he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be 
the father of all them that believe, though they be not cir- 
cumcised, that righteousness might be imputed unto them 
also. . . . He staggered not at the promise of God 
through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to 
God ; And being fully persuaded that what he had prom- 
ised he was able also to perform. And therefore it was 
imputed to him for righteousness. Now, it was not writ- 
ten for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him ; but for 
us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him 
that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, Avho was 
delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our 
justification." 



208 JUSTIFICATION. 

Galatians iii, 6-9: "Even as Abraham believed God, 
and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye 
therefore, that they which are of faith, the same are the 
children of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that 
God would justify the heathen through faith, preached be- 
fore the Gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all 
nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are 
blessed with faithful Abraham." 

In examining the foregoing texts, let the ques- 
tion be asked, How was Abraham justified? 
1. He was not justified by works. We have 
already considered the objections founded on the 
passage in James ii. Abraham was not justified 
by works, for the apostle does not mention 
"works" as having any thing to do with his 
justification; while on the contrary he positively 
denies that any man can be justified by works. 
(Acts xiii, 38, 39; Rom. iii, 20, 28; Gal. ii, 16; 
iii, 11.) The apostle classes Abraham before his 
justification with "the ungodly" (Rom, iv, 5), 
thus completely shutting out all thought of his 
justification by works. He was not justified by 
circumcision, for he was justified before he was 
circumcised. Justification was granted to Abra- 
ham on one of three conditions, namely, his 
works, his circumcision, or his faith. We have 
already seen that his justification was not con- 
ditioned on either his works or his circumcision; 
it follows, then, that faith was the only condition 



ARGUMENTS IN PROOF. 209 

of his justification. Dr. Murphy, in his Com- 
mentary on Genesis, states the case forcibly : 
"Abraham had no righteousness; and if he had 
not, no man had. We have seen enough of 
Abram to know this on other grounds. And 
here the universal fact of man's depravity comes 
out into incidental notice as a thing usually taken 
for granted in the words of God. Righteousness 
is here imputed to Abram, hence mercy and 
grace are extended to him — mercy taking effect 
in the pardon of his sin, and grace in bestowing 
the rewards of righteousness. That in him which 
is counted for righteousness is faith in Jehovah 
promising mercy. In the absence of righteous- 
ness this is the only thing in the sinner that can 
be counted for righteousness." 

Abraham's justification is made the pattern of 
ours. (Rom. iv, 11, 22-25.) "Abraham was a 
representative person. What was true of him 
was true of all others who stood in the same rela- 
tion to God. The method in which he was jus- 
tified is the method in which other sinners must 
be justified. That he was justified by faith is 
recorded in the Scriptures to be a perpetual tes- 
timony as to the true method of justification be- 
fore God." (Hodge, in loco.) It is the teaching 
of the New Testament that we are justified as he 
was. He was justified by "faith only;" hence 
14 



210 JUSTIFICATION. 

we are justified by "faith only." It has been 
objected "that those who would be justified as 
Abraham was ' must walk in the steps of the faith 
of Abraham,' and that these words show that 
neither Abraham nor we are justified by faith 
only, but by faith and works united ; for the 
phrase 'walk in the steps,' indicates works." 
The phrase "walk in the steps " simply means to 
follow the example. It is so defined by Picker- 
ing" — (see his Lexicon, sub., h/voq) — "An ex- 
emplar, model ; a person in whose steps we desire 
or ought to tread, that we may not wander from 
the right path." Robinson defines it thus: "To 
walk or follow in one's footsteps — that is, to imi- 
tate his example." For the New Testament 
usage of the term see 2 Cor. xii, 18; I Peter 
ii, 21. Barnes renders the clause thus: "Who 
imitate his example ; who imbibe his spirit; who 
have his faith." The apostle teaches us that we 
should imitate the example of Abraham in seek- 
ing justification. He sought it by "faith only," 
and the apostle instructs us to do the same thing. 
Our next "argument is based upon such pas- 
sages as present what are necessary and insepa- 
rable concomitants of justification as being by or 
through faith. There are presented in the Scrip- 
tures several blessings, which, though distinct in 
their nature from justification, invariably accom- 



ARGUMENTS IN PROOF. 211 

pany it, and never can exist but in connection 
with it. Now, it must be admitted that, if two 
or more things never exist except in connection 
with each other, whatever is indispensable to the 
existence of one must be indispensable to the 
existence of the others; whatever would lead 
to the existence of one would necessarily lead 
to the existence of the others ; or, in other 
words, whatever is the grand indispensable con- 
dition to the existence of the one must sustain 
the same relation to the others. For illustration 
of this argument, we would refer to the familiar 
relation of husband and wife. These relations 
necessarily imply the existence of each other. 
They are inseparable concomitants. Although 
the two relations are not identical, the husband 
is not the wife, nor the wife the husband, — yet 
the relation of husband can not exist without 
the relation of wife, nor the relation of wife 
without that of husband. Now, is it not clear 
from this that whatever would necessarily lead 
to the existence of the one relation would also 
lead to the existence of the other, and whatever 
would prevent the existence of the one relation 
would necessarily prevent the existence of the 
other? Apply this principle of reasoning to the 
subject in hand. Regeneration, adoption, and sal- 
vation, in a certain sense, are inseparable con- 



212 JUSTIFICATION. 

comitants of justification; the one can not exist 
without the others. Whoever is justified is born 
of God, or regenerated, adopted, and, in a certain 
sense, saved; and none can be regenerated, 
adopted or saved, in that sense, but the justified. 
From this it will follow that whatever leads to 
the one of these concomitant blessings must lead 
to the others, and whatever would prevent the 
one must prevent the others. Or, in other words, 
whatever is the grand condition to the existence 
of the one sustains the same relation to the 
others. Now, if we can show from the Scrip- 
tures that we are regenerated, adopted, and 
saved through or by faith, it will necessarily fol- 
low that we are justified through or by faith. 
This we think will be evident from the following 
Scriptures: Rom. i, 16: 'For I am not ashamed 
of the Gospel of Christ: for it is the power of 
God unto salvation to every one that believeth; 
to the Jew first and also to the Greek.' Eph. ii, 
8: 'For by grace are ye saved through faith; and 
that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.' 
Luke vii, 50: 'And he said to the woman, Thy 
faith hath saved thee: go in peace.' John xx, 
31: 'But these are written that ye might believe 
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and 
that believing ye might have life through his 
name.' Mark xvi, 16: 'He that believeth and is 



ARGUMENTS IN PROOF. 21 3 

baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not 
shall be damned.' Acts xvi, 31: 'Believe on the 
Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.' 2 
Tim. iii, 15: 'And that from a child thou hast 
known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to 
make thee wise unto salvation through faith 
which is in Christ Jesus.' John i, 12, 13: 'But 
.as many as received him, to them gave he 
power to become the sons of God, even to them 
that believe on his name : which were born, not 
of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the 
will of man, but of God.' Acts xv, 9: 'And 
put no difference between us and them, purify- 
ing their hearts by faith.' Acts xxvi, 18; 'That 
they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheri- 
tance among them which are sanctified by faith 
that is in me.' Gal. iii, 26: 'For ye are all 
the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.' 
I John v, 1 : ' Whosoever believeth that Jesus 
is the Christ, is born of God.' 1 John v, 10: 
'He that believeth on the Son of God hath the 
witness in himself From the above Scriptures 
it is undeniable that faith is the necessary con- 
dition of regeneration, adoption, and salvation; 
but as these are inseparable concomitants of jus- 
tification, it follows that faith is the necessary 
condition of justification." (Ralston's Elements 
of Divinity, pp. 319-321.) It is sometimes 



214 JUSTIFICATION. 

objected that although these texts do not name 
any other thing except faith as a condition of 
the various blessings spoken of, yet that is no 
proof that faith is the only condition of these 
blessings; that in other Scriptures other condi- 
tions may be named. But this is not a fair 
statement of the case. Several of these texts 
not only mention faith as a condition of these 
blessings, but they positively promise these 
blessings to every one having faith. Thus, "Be- 
lieve on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be 
saved." "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is 
the Christ is born of God." "He that believeth 
on the Son of God hath the witness in himself." 
These texts certainly make faith the only condi- 
tion of obtaining the blessings named. No other 
condition is named or referred to. On the con- 
trary, it is plainly asserted that whosoever has 
faith is born of God, has the witness of it, and 
shall be saved. Now, if these blessings de- 
pended upon any other condition besides faith, 
then it would not be absolutely true that every 
believer had the blessing. A man might believe 
and be perfectly willing to do any thing and 
every thing else that God wanted him to do; 
and yet any one of a thousand obstacles might 
hinder him from complying with any other con- 
ditions, and thus prevent his obtaining the 



ARGUMENTS IN PROOF. 21 5 

blessing. But Christ has said that the believer 
is not condemned, that he has passed from death 
unto life, that he is born of God, that he has 
eternal life, and that he has the witness in him- 
self. Hence faith is its only condition. But as 
these blessings exist only in conjunction with 
justification, it follows that faith is the only con- 
dition of justification. 



VIII. 

NATURE OF THE FAITH THAT JUSTIFIES. 

JUSTIFYING faith can not be defined per- 
fectly by any one word or sentence. "The 
difficulty in giving a definition of faith is that we 
have no word that clearly and adequately ex- 
presses the whole act of acceptance or closing of 
the soul or heart with Christ." (Edwards.) It 
comprehends several items, and can be under- 
stood only by a consideration of these items. It 
comprises, 1st. An assent of the mind to the facts 
and doctrines of the Gospel, so far as these are 
known to the person. 2d. A consent of the will 
to the terms of pardon and salvation as laid down 
in that Gospel. 3d. A penitent and hearty trust 
in Christ as a personal Savior. We not unfre- 
quently meet with persons who collect together 
Bible texts which call for our faith in some one 
Bible fact or doctrine, and they make that fact or 
doctrine the Alpha and Omega of our faith. 
Thus, we are not unfrequently told that the be- 
lief of one fact, namely, that "Jesus Christ is the 
Son of God," is all that is requisite, as far as faith 
216 



NATURE OF THE FAITH. 2\J 

goes, to salvation. Such persons are apt to ignore 
every other quality of justifying faith except the 
simple assent of the understanding to the fact 
that "Jesus Christ is the Son of God. " To such 
persons we would suggest that the duty of be- 
lieving in the divine Sonship does not supersede 
the necessity of a hearty personal trust in Christ. 
The duty of exercising such trust in Christ is 
plainly and forcibly taught in the Bible, and does 
not clash with faith in his Sonship, but on the 
contrary, fairly includes it. Furthermore, in 
those New Testament cases where men (not de- 
moniacs) professed their faith in Christ's divine 
Sonship, their faith in that Sonship grew out of, 
and. was associated with, a personal trust in him. 
Thus in Matt, viii, 33, the disciples had seen Christ 
walking on the waves in the midst of the storm. 
His kind words, "It is I, be not afraid," had 
quieted their fears. They had seen him save 
Peter from sinking; when he came on the ship 
the storm ceased. These incidents were surely 
sufficient to call out their confidence, their wor- 
ship, and their confession, "Of a truth thou art 
the Son of God." Again, in Matt, xxvii, 54, the 
unnatural darkness and the earthquake at the 
death of Christ, gave the centurion confidence in 
Christ as "the Son of God." Again, we have 
similar evidence of a personal trust in Christ by 



2l8 JUSTIFICATION. 

Nathanael when he calls Christ "the Son of 4 
God." (John i, 45-49; vi, 66-69; xi, 21-27; 
i, 29-34; ix, 35-38.) In Acts viii, 37, the 
eunuch's confession, "I believe that Jesus Christ 
is the Son of God," was given by him after he 
had read and listened to the story of Christ's suf- 
ferings, death, and resurrection — matters well cal- 
culated to fill his soul with confidence in Christ. 
Furthermore, the eunuch's confession of his faith 
in the Sonship of the Savior was given in answer 
to Philip's inquiry as to whether he believed with 
all the heart. 

On the nature of faith Watson speaks as fol- 
lows: "It is not, surely, that we may merely be- 
lieve that the death of Christ is a sacrifice for sin 
that he is 'set forth as a propitiation,' but that 
we may trust in its efficacy; it is not that we may 
merely believe that God has made promises to us 
that his merciful engagements in our favor are re- 
corded, but that we may have confidence in 
them, and thus be supported by them. This was 
the faith of the saints of the Old Testament. 
'By faith Abraham, when he was called to go 
out into a place which he should after receive for 
an inheritance, obeyed, and he went out, not 
knowing whither he went.' His faith was con- 
fidence. ' Though he slay me, yet will I trust in 
him. ' ' Who is among you that feareth the Lord ? 



NATURE OF THE FAITH. 2ig 

let him trust in the name of the Lord, and stay 
upon his God.' ' Blessed is the man that trusteth 
in the Lord, and whose hope the Lord is.' It is 
under this notion of trust that faith is continually 
represented to us also in the New Testament. 
' In his name shall the Gentiles trust. ' v For 
therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, be- 
cause we trust in the living God, who is the 
Savior of all men, and especially of them that 
believe. ' ' For I know whom I have believed 
(trusted), and am persuaded that he is able to 
keep that which I have committed unto him 
against that day.' ' If we hold the beginning of 
our confidence steadfast to the end.' " 

That justifying faith is a hearty trust in Christ 
is abundantly illustrated by the New Testament. 
In John iii, 14-16, it is the trust of those who 
have been bitten by the old serpent and are look- 
ing to and believing in the uplifted Son of man, 
confident that he both can and will save them 
from eternal death. In John x, 26-28, it is sym- 
bolized by the confidence sheep have in a loving 
shepherd. In John vi, 35, it is the confidence of 
the thirsty traveler coming to Jesus for the water 
of life. In John xx, 26-31, it is the confidence 
of the once doubting Thomas when he has seen 
Jesus and has thrust his hand into his side and 
has put his finger in the print of the nails, and 



220 JUSTIFICATION. 

who feels himself both reproved and cheered by 
the kind word of Jesus. In 2 Tim. i, 12, it is 
the trust and persuasion of one who has com- 
mitted the keeping of his soul to the Captain of 
his salvation. It is the unwavering confidence 
of Abraham, who, in his old age, believed that 
God was able to raise Isaac from the dead. 
(Heb. xi, 17-19.) It is the confidence of those 
who, like Peter, feel that there is no one besides 
Christ to whom they can go for eternal life. 
(John vi, 68.) It is the confidence of those who, 
like Paul, feel that faith in Christ is the very life 
of their souls. (Gal. iii, 20.) It is a confidence 
in Christ so strong that the possessor is willing to 
die for Christ's sake. (Phil, i, 29.) It is the 
trust in Christ of one who realizes that he can 
not be saved by any thing else other than the 
mercy of the Son of God. (1 Tim. i, 16.) 



IX. 

FAITH, THE GIFT OF GOD. 

WE have already shown that, in believing, 
man is not merely a passive recipient; 
but that he is .also a voluntary and responsible 
actor. Yet it is also true that in believing he 
needs and receives help direct from God. Be- 
cause of this, faith is often spoken of as "the 
gift of God." We will now endeavor to deter- 
mine in what sense faith is the gift of God. 
"According to the Antinomian theory, faith is 
the gift of God in the same sense in which the 
manna from heaven was such. That is, Antino- 
mians understand that faith is a grace, or a 
something possessing an abstract existence, as 
separate and distinct from the existence and 
operations of the believer as the manna in ques- 
tion was from the existence and operations of 
the people who gathered and used it. Accord- 
ing to the above notion of faith, to call upon 
men to believe and to hold them responsible for 
their unbelief, would be just as consistent with 
reason and Scripture, as to call upon them to 

221 



222 JUSTIFICATION. 

stop the planets in their course, and to hold them 
responsible for the rotation of the seasons. Such 
view of the subject is not only inconsistent with 
the whole tenor of Scripture, which enjoins 
upon man the exercise of faith as a duty, but 
it is irreconcilable with the very nature of faith. 
What is faith? It is no abstract entity which 
God has treasured up in the magazines of heaven 
to be conveyed down to man without any 
agency of his, as the olive leaf was borne to the 
window of the ark by Noah's dove. Faith has 
no existence in the abstract. We might as well 
suppose that there can be thought without an 
intelligent being to think, as that faith can exist 
separate from the agent who believes. Faith is 
the act of believing; it is an exercise of the 
mind, and, in the very nature of things, must be 
dependent on the agency of the believer for its 
existence. There is, however, a sense in which 
we think faith may with propriety be called the 
gift of God. Whatsoever is the result of a mer- 
ciful arrangement of God, although our own 
agency may be requisite to our enjoyment of the 
blessing, is, in an important sense, the gift of 
God. For example, the sight of external ob- 
jects results from a merciful arrangement of God, 
by which the surrounding rays of light are 
adapted to the organization of the human eye. 



FAITH THE GIFT OF GOD. 223 

Thus sight may be called the gift of God, but 
not so as to exclude human agency; for we may 
either open or close our eyes at pleasure; we 
may look upward to the stars or downward to 
the earth; we may turn to the right or left at 
will. Even so faith results from a merciful ar- 
rangement of God, not independent of, but in 
connection with, the free moral agency of man, 
It is of God's merciful arrangement that we are 
presented with a Saviour, the proper object of 
faith, that we have access to his Word and Gospel, 
unfolding the plan of salvation, and exhibiting 
the subject matter of faith; that we are pre- 
sented with the proper evidences of the truth 
of our holy religion, serving as the ground or 
reason of our faith; that we have minds and 
hearts susceptible of divine illumination and gra- 
cious influence, enabling us to engage in the ex- 
ercise of faith, and, lastly, that the gracious in- 
fluence through the agency of the Holy Spirit 
is vouchsafed unto us by which we may, in the 
exercise of the ability which God giveth, in con- 
nection with all these privileges, 'believe to the 
salvation of our souls.' In reference to all these 
particulars, so far as they are connected with, or 
enter into, the composition of faith, it is properly 
the gift of God." (Condensed from Ralston's 
Elements of Divinity.) 



224 JUSTIFICATION. 

In support of the proposition that man needs 
and receives divine help in believing let the 
following evidence be considered. When the 
father brought his son (who was a demoniac) to 
Christ, to have him healed, he evidently did not 
have a perfect faith in Christ, for he said to 
Christ, "if thou canst do any thing," etc. His 
language implied a doubting condition of mind. 
Jesus answered him, "if thou canst believe, all 
things are possible to him that believeth." 
(Mark ix, 17-27.) The father feels the reproof, 
he is conscious of the weakness of his faith, yet 
he is struggling to believe; he needs help to be- 
lieve; in his agony he turns, to Christ with the 
cry, "help thou mine unbelief." Christ has sus- 
pended the child's cure on the father's faith, the 
father needs help to believe, he asks that help 
of Christ, and the child is cured. The only log- 
ical conclusion is, that the father's prayer for 
help to believe was a proper prayer, and Christ 
answered it by giving the desired help. In Acts 
iii, 16, the faith which healed the lame man is 
said to have been il by" (tied) Christ, thus mak- 
ing Christ the author of that faith. The follow- 
ing texts will show the usage of dtd with the 
genitive: "with persons, the agent or instrument; 
' by whom [through whom, as an instrument] 
He made the world.' Heb. i, 2, Matt, i, 22: 



FAITH THE GIFT OF GOD. 225 

* Spoken of the Lord by the prophet' [as 
an instrument.] Heb. iii, 16, 'that came out 
of Egypt by Moses ' [the agent in their ex- 
odus]. So 'by Jesus Christ,' as the instrument 
of salvation. Rom. v, 5: 'by the Holy Ghost.' 
2 Tim. ii, 2: 'among [or by] many witnesses.' 
See, also, Gal. i, 1." (Condensed from Jelf's 
Greek Grammar, Vol. II, p. 302.) The apos- 
tle's expression represents the man's faith as be- 
ing brought into existence by the gracious help 
of Christ. In Eph. vi, 23, the apostle in his 
prayer for the brethren, asks that peace, love, 
and faith, may all be given them by God the 
Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. In Col. ii, 
12, our faith is said to be of (or by) the opera- 
tion of God: "Through the faith of the opera- 
tion of God;" hepyeiaq too deou, tJie energy, foixe, 
or power of God; that is, faith created by the 
will of the man aided by the power of God. 
God creates faith in a man by revealing Christ 
to him through the Gospel; giving him a con- 
ception of Christ as a Savior, and enabling him 
to trust in Christ. The voluntary act of faith 
belongs to the man ; the gracious power by 
which he is enabled to believe comes from God. 
Conybeare and Howson translate this clause 
thus: "Through the faith wrought in you by 
God." Olshausen: "Faith which the operation 
15 



226 JUSTIFICATION. 

of God calls forth." Dr. Clarke says: " Believ- 
ing- is the act of the soul; but the grace or 
power to believe comes from God himself." 
Phil, i, 29: "For unto you it is given in the be- 
half of Christ, not only to believe on him, but 
also to suffer for his sake." It will not be ques- 
tioned that the power to endure sufferings for 
Christ is a gift from God, but in the text the 
power to believe and the power to endure suf- 
ferings are both classed together as gifts from 
God. 1 Tim. i, 14: "And the grace of our 
Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and 
love which is in Christ Jesus." Here, pardon- 
ing mercy, the power to believe, and the power 
to love are all ascribed to Christ, as his gifts to 
the apostle. 

An effort is frequently made to evade the 
force of the preceding evidence by quoting Rom. 
x, 17: "Faith cometh by hearing," etc., and 
then pleading that the only help God gives man 
in order to his believing is to give him the Gos- . 
pel and the evidence of its credibility. In an- 
swering this evasion, we call attention to the 
following points : First. The soul of man has 
been so besotted with sin, that a simple presen- 
tation to him of the truth, with the evidence on 
which it rests, is not sufficient. There is needed 
a special work of God to arouse his attention to 



FAITH THE GIFT OF GOD. 22J 

the Gospel. "Open thou mine eyes, that I may 
behold wondrous things out of thy law." (Psalm 
cxix, J 8.) There are two things concerning the 
author of these words which will not be ques- 
tioned: I. That he had the Word of God in his 
possession. 2. That he had at least average 
mental abilities. Notwithstanding these facts, 
he still feels the need of divine help, and prays 
for it that he may be able to understand the di- 
vine Word. The word here rendered "open" is 
the same word rendered ''opened " in the sentence, 
"The Lord opened the eyes of Balaam, and he 
saw." The angel had been standing in the way 
before this, but Balaam did not see him until 
God opened his eyes. The wondrous things 
were all in the law, but the Psalmist needed that 
God open his spiritual eyesight before he could 
see them. Dr. Clarke's note on this text is very 
fine: "Illuminate my understanding, take away 
the veil that is on my heart, and then shall I see 
wonders in thy law. The Holy Scriptures are 
plain enough : but the heart of man is darkened 
by sin. The Bible does not so much need a 
comment, as the soul does the light of the Holy 
Spirit." See, also, Luke xxiv, 45; Acts xvi, 
14; Eph. i, 17, 18. Second. It is not faith in a 
dogma which justifies, but faith in a person, and 
that person the Son of God. This feature is 



228 JUSTIFICATION. 

heightened by a consideration of the time when 
the man is called upon to believe in Christ. 
When the Holy Spirit is sending his arrows of 
conviction deepest into the soul, when conviction 
of sin and its consequent distress are taking their 
strongest hold of him, then it is he is called upon 
to trust his every hope for time and eternity 
on Christ. The man feels himself to be nothing 
but sin; and he sees Christ to be altogether 
righteous, Christ is all merciful; but it is against 
that very mercy that he has sinned. He has 
heard the Gospel, but it is a Gospel which in 
times past he has rejected. Still he must believe 
in Christ, or be eternally lost. At this point, if 
left to himself he would sink in despair; here he 
needs help, in order that he may believe; and, 
blessed be God, he receives it. It is through 
the aid of the Holy Spirit that he is able to look 
upon Christ, and praise him as "the author and 
perfecter" of his faith. (Heb. xii, 2.) 



X. 



WITNESS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT TO THE FACT 
OF THE BELIEVER'S JUSTIFICATION AND 
ADOPTION. 

WE will state the doctrine of ' ' the witness 
of the Spirit" as it is taught in the ser- 
mons of John Wesley. "But perhaps one might 
say (desiring any who are taught of God to cor- 
rect, to soften, or to strengthen the expression), 
the testimony of the Spirit is an inward impres- 
sion on the soul, whereby the Spirit of God di- 
rectly witnesses to my spirit, that I am a child of 
God ; that Jesus Christ hath loved me, and given 
himself for me ; and that all my sins are blotted 
out, and I, even I, am reconciled to God." "The 
testimony now under consideration is given by 
the Spirit of God to and with our spirit ; he is 
the person testifying. What he testifies to us is 
* that we are the children of God.' The imme- 
diate result of this testimony is ' the fruit of the 
Spirit,' namely, 'love, joy, peace, longsuffering, 
gentleness, goodness;' and without these the tes- 
timony itself can not continue." Again, " Mean- 

229 



230 JUSTIFICATION. 

time let it be observed, I do not mean hereby 
that the Spirit of God testifies this by any out- 
ward voice, no, nor always by an inward voice, 
although he may do this sometimes ; neither do I 
suppose that he always applies to the heart 
(though he often may) one or more texts of 
Scripture ; but he so works upon the soul by his 
immediate influence, and by a strong though in- 
explicable operation, that the stormy wind and 
troubled waves subside and there is a sweet calm, 
the heart resting as in the arms of Jesus, and the 
sinner being clearly satisfied that God is recon- 
ciled, that all his 'iniquities are forgiven, and his 
sins covered.'" (Wesley's Sermons, Vol. I,. 
pp. 87, 94.) 

To the foregoing statement of the doctrine, 
Jonathan Edwards objects. "It requires no 
higher sort of idea or sensation for a man to have 
the apprehension of his own conversion impressed 
upon him than to have the apprehension of his 
neighbor's conversion in like manner impressed ; 
but God, if he pleased, might impress the knowl- 
edge of this fact that he had forgiven his neigh- 
bor's sins and given him a title to heaven, as well 
as any other fact, without any communication of 
his holiness. The excellency and importance of 
the fact do not at all hinder a natural man's mind 
being susceptible of an immediate suggestion and 



WITNESS OF THE SPIRIT. 23 1 

impression of it." (Works, Vol. Ill, p. 86.) 
In answer to this objection it is sufficient to state 
that the question is not about the sort or quality 
of the impression, nor whether it is attended by 
any impartation of holiness. It is not disputed 
that God can and may make revelations concern- 
ing specific matter to unconverted men — as in 
the cases of Abimelech, Laban, and Balaam. 
These matters do not concern the question at 
issue, which is, "Will the Holy Spirit bear an 
immediate and direct testimony to a believing 
penitent that his sins are pardoned and that he is 
adopted into the family of God ?" But to relieve 
the doctrine entirely from the objection of Ed- 
wards, it will be shown hereafter that the witness 
of the Spirit is not a mere mental conviction — as 
in the case of Laban and Balaam — but, on the 
contrary, it is a rich spiritual gift, filling the heart 
with love, joy, and peace. 

Edwards states another objection thus : "What 
has misled many in their notion of that influence of 
the Spirit of God we are speaking of is the word 
witness, its being called the witness of the Spirit. 
Hence they have taken it not to be any effect or 
work of the Spirit upon the heart, giving evidence 
from whence men may argue that they are the 
children of God, but an inward immediate sug- 
gestion, as though God inwardly spoke to the 



232 JUSTIFICATION. 

man and testified to him, and told him that he 
was his child by a kind of secret voice or impres- 
sion ; not observing the manner in which the 
word witness, or testimony, is often used in the 
New Testament, where such terms often signify 
not only a mere declaring and asserting a thing 
to be true, but holding forth evidence from 
whence a thing may be argued and proved to be 
true." Edwards proceeds to illustrate and prove 
this objection by a reference to several texts of 
Scripture, which we will call up and examine 
hereafter. To this objection as it stands we an- 
swer, 1st. That the work of the Spirit in the 
heart consists in shedding God's love abroad in 
it — filling it with joy and faith. Now, love, joy, 
and faith have no abstract existence apart from a 
conscious active agent who exercises the love, 
who rejoices, and who believes. In the case be- 
fore us the love, joy, and faith exist as the action 
of the heart in which the Spirit is working. 
Hence they are the witness of the believer's own 
spirit to the efficiency of the Holy Spirit's work. 
So far from these graces precluding the direct wit- 
ness of the Holy Spirit, they can not even exist 
until the Holy Spirit has first given its witness to 
the fact of pardon and adoption. 2d. Edwards's 
effort to prove that God sometimes bears a medi- 
ate testimony to his truth by means of signs, 



WITNESS OF THE SPIRIT. 233 

works, and miracles, is wholly foreign to the 
issue. The question is not whether God some- 
times bears witness mediately through his works, 
but whether the Holy Spirit bears direct witness 
to the fact of pardon. Edwards makes some 
Scriptural references in support of his objection, 
but when they are examined they prove to be 
rather unfortunate ones for his theory. No one 
of the texts refers to the doctrine under examina- 
tion. The first two — Heb. ii, 4 ; Acts xiv, 3 — 
refer to the manner in which God witnessed to 
the calling and ministry of the apostles. These 
texts set forth the fact that God testified to their 
ministry by signs and wonders. But this did not 
preclude the fact of God giving a direct personal 
testimony to the same fact. Thus God gave to 
Ananias a direct witness concerning the calling of 
Paul. He also gave to Cornelius a direct witness 
concerning the ministry of Peter. It was also in 
a direct manner that the Holy Spirit witnessed to 
the Church at Antioch concerning the ministry of 
Paul and Barnabas. (Acts ix, 10-16; x, 1-6; 
xiii, 1, 2.) The next two texts — John v, 36; 
x, 25 — refer to the testimony borne to Christ by 
the Father through the instrumentality of the 
works wrought by Christ. But so far from this 
witness of works precluding a direct witness from 
the Father, the first named of these texts (John 



234 JUSTIFICATION. 

v, 36) is followed, in the very next verse, by an 
explicit statement of it. Turn to the passage, 
and in the 36th verse you read, "The same works 
that I do bear witness of me, that the Father hath 
sent me." In the next verse you read, "And the 
Father himself which hath sent me hath borne 
witness of me." He did it by direct witness both 
at his baptism and at his transfiguration. (Matt, 
iii, 17; xvii, 5.) How could Edwards overlook 
so plain a fact? Edwards not only overlooked 
Bible facts, but he seems also to have overlooked 
the facts of his own experience. We quote the 
following from the account of his religious ex- 
perience as written by himself. (See his Works, 
Vol. I, p. 16.) "The first instance that I remem- 
ber of that sort of inward sweet delight in God 
and divine things that I have lived much in since, 
was on reading those words — 1 Tim. i, 17 — 'Now 
unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the 
only wise God, be honor and glory for ever and 
ever. Amen.' As I read the words there came 
into my soul, and was as it were diffused through 
it, a sense of the glory of the Divine Being, a 
new sense, quite different from any thing I ever 
experienced before." Had Edwards forgotten 
this blessed experience when he wrote his objec- 
tions to the direct witness of the Holy Spirit? 
It is often objected to the direct witness of the 



WITNESS OF THE SPIRIT. 235 

Holy Spirit that "it has been often claimed by 
those who evidently did not have it, but were 
enthusiasts, fanatics, or hypocrites." The mere 
fact that many profess this witness who do not 
possess it is no proof that others do not possess 
it. The existence of counterfeit gold, or of the 
parhelion, is no proof against the existence of 
genuine gold, or of a real sun. If there were no 
such things as real kings, then it would never 
have entered the heads of lunatics and wicked 
pretenders to claim the titles and rights of royalty. 
The existence of the counterfeit and the spurious 
is strong presumptive evidence of the existence 
of the genuine. If there were no such thing as 
the direct witness of the Spirit, it would be diffi- 
cult to conceive how hypocrites would originate 
the claim. *■ 

Three other objections are thus stated and 
answered by Wesley (Works, Vol. I, p. 97) : 
" 'But I lay it down as an undoubted truth, the 
fruit of the Spirit is the witness of the Spirit.' 
Not undoubted ! thousands doubt of, yea, flatly 
'deny it; but let that pass. 'If this witness be 
sufficient there is no need of any other. But it is 
sufficient unless in one of these cases, 1. The total 
absence of the fruit of the Spirit.' And this is 
the case when the direct witness is first given. 
2. 'The not perceiving it. But to contend for it 



236 JUSTIFICATION. 

in this case is to contend for being in the favor 
of God and not knowing it.' True, not knowing 
it at that time any otherwise than by the testi- 
mony which is given for that end. And this we 
do contend for: we contend that the direct wit- 
ness may shine clear even while the indirect one 
is under a cloud." 

PROOF OF THE DIRECT WITNESS OF THE SPIRIT. 

I. The existence of a direct witness of the 
Holy Spirit to the fact of the believer's pardon is 
implied in the work of the conviction of sin by 
the Holy Spirit. In the conviction of a sinner 
his mind is deeply impressed with the thought 
of his exceeding sinfulness ; he is made to feel 
that God has just cause to be angry with him ; 
that he deserves to be punised. This condition 
of things is brought about by the Holy Ghost 
because God is justly displeased with the sinner's 
conduct and desires to lead him to repentance 
and to a reconciliation with God. All this fairly 
implies that when the sinner has repented and be- 
lieved God will remove the sense of guilt and 
condemnation and grant him an evidence of his 
restoration to the divine favor. As God's dis- 
pleasure was aroused by the impenitence and un- 
belief of the sinner, it would seem natural that it 
should pass away when the sinner has repented 



WITNESS OF THE SPIRIT. 237 

and complied with the terms of pardon. As God 
fills the sinner's mind with the sense of guilt and 
condemnation because of his impenitence, it 
would seem reasonable when the sinner repented 
that God should remove this sense of guilt and 
condemnation and substitute for it in the peni- 
tent's mind a sense of the divine love — a witness 
or testimony of reconciliation. 

2. The force of the foregoing argument is 
strengthened by the reflection that the pardon 
of our sins is an act of the divine mind, and can 
not be known to us at all, unless God chooses to 
reveal it to us. It may be replied to this, that 
the fact of forgiveness may be implied from the 
fact of our having complied with the terms of 
pardon; namely, repentance and faith. But this 
would leave us to the mercy of doubts, and most 
tormenting fears — doubts and fears concerning 
both the quantity and the quality of our repent- 
ance and of our faith. "Faith, both as assent 
and confidence, has every possible degree; it is 
capable of mixture with doubt and self depend- 
ence; nor without some definite and particular 
characters being assigned to justifying faith, 
could we ever, with any confidence, conclude as 
to our own. But we have no such particular 
description of faith, nor are we authorized any- 
where to make ourselves the judges of the fact, 



238 JUSTIFICATION. 

whether the act of pardon as to us has passed 
the mind of God. The apostle, in the passages 
quoted above, has assigned that office to the 
Holy Spirit; but it is in no part of Scripture ap- 
pointed to us." (Watson's Inst., Vol. II, p. 277.) 
Furthermore, we were not left to determine our 
condemned condition by a logical process; we 
were made painfully conscious of it by a direct 
reproof from God; and it is but reasonable to 
suppose that God having pardoned us, he would 
make us conscious of that pardon by a direct 
testimony to that effect. Neither will it be of 
any avail to say that we can argue the fact of 
our pardon from the fact that we have in our 
hearts "the fruit of the Spirit," which is love. 
For this fruit of the Spirit, "love," depends for 
its very existence on the previous witness of the 
Spirit. "We love him, because he first loved 
us." (1 John iv, 19.) Here our love to God is 
predicated upon the fact that he first loved us. 
But how could this be true unless we were made 
aware that he loved us? And how could we be 
made aware of this fact unless God gave us a 
direct witness of it? This consciousness of God's 
love must precede all the fruit of the Spirit. It 
will not do to say that we can collect the evi- 
dence of God's love for us from the history of 
his providence, and his general dealings with us. 



WITNESS OF THE SPIRIT. 239 

It is not God's love in providence, but his love 
in redemption, as shown in his merciful acts of 
pardon and adoption, that begets our love. And 
we can have no knowledge of these facts, and 
can not love him until he makes his love known 
to us by a direct witness. "If we 'love God,' 
it is because we know him as God reconciled; if 
we have 'joy in God,' it is because 'we have re- 
ceived the reconciliation;' if we have peace, it is 
because, 'being justified by faith, we have peace 
with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ.' 
" God, conceived of as angry, can not be the ob- 
ject of filial love; pardon unfelt, supposes guilt 
and fear still to burden the mind, and 'love' and 
'joy' and 'peace' can not exist. But by the 
argument of those who make these the media of 
ascertaining the fact of our pardon and adoption, 
we must be supposed to love God, while yet we 
feel him to be angry with us; to rejoice and 
have peace, while the fearful apprehensions of 
the consequences of unremitted sin are not re- 
moved; and if this is impossible, then the ground 
of our love and joy and peace is pardon revealed 
and witnessed directly and immediately by the 
spirit of adoption." (Watson's Inst., Vol. II, 
pp. 278, 279.) "That this testimony of the 
Spirit of God must needs, in the very nature of 
things, be antecedent to the testimony of our 



240 JUSTIFICATION. 

own spirit may appear from this single consid- 
eration : we mus,t be holy of heart and holy in 
life before we can be conscious that we are so, 
before we can have the testimony of our spirit 
that we are inwardly and outwardly holy. But 
we must love God before we can be holy at all; 
this being the root of all holiness. Now we can 
not love God till we know he loves us. 'We 
love him, because he first loved us.' And we 
can not know his pardoning love to us till his 
Spirit witnesses it to our spirit." (Wesley's 
Works, Vol. I, p. 88.) 

3. We ask the reader's attention to the following 
texts: "The secret of the Lord is with them 
that fear him." "His secret is with the right- 
eous." (Psalm xxv, 14; Prov. iii, 32.) t What- 
ever the term "secret" may mean in these 
texts, it evidently designates a blessing which is 
known only to God, and to those to whom he 
choses to reveal it. It is also evident that it is in 
the possession of all the righteous; having been 
communicated to them by God. Now, it can 
not be supposed that God communicates to every 
righteous person the secrets belonging to the 
creation, government, or future history of earth. 
He made a partial communication of these se- 
crets to the inspired writers; the matters thus 
communicated were spread upon the pages of 



WITNESS OF THE SPIRIT. 24I 

revelation, and were secrets no longer. The 
"secret" mentioned in the foregoing' texts is a 
private communication from God to the believer, 
something which the ungodly world knows noth- 
ing of, and can not participate in. We can not 
conceive of any thing which is known only to 
God which is communicated by him to all be- 
lievers, and which can not be understood or ap- 
preciated by the world, save only the testimony 
of the pardon of the believer's sins by God. 
The pardon of sin is an act taking place in the 
divine mind. At the moment of its taking place 
it is known only to God its author. This is 
true also of the act of adoption. Hence, the 
fact of a believer's pardon and adoption is a 
"secnet" with God our Father. Now there is 
no secret in the divine mind which so concerns 
a believing penitent as the answers to the ques- 
tions, "Has God forgiven me?" "Am I a child 
of God?" There can be neither peace nor joy 
nor any of the fruits of the divine Spirit 
until God testifies to him the secret of his par- 
don and adoption. "Communion with himself, 
peace, joy, assurance, teaching, confidence, an 
enlightened apprehension of Providence ; yea, all 
the blessings of his covenant, — this is the secret 

between God and the soul — an inclosed portion, 
16 



242 JUSTIFICATION. 

hidden from the world, sealed to his beloved 
people." (Bridge on Proverbs.) 

4. "And hope maketh not ashamed, because 
the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by 
the Holy Ghost which is given unto us." (Rom. 
v, 5.) What do the words "love of God " here 
mean ? They do not mean our love to God, for 
our love to God would be a very unsatisfactory 
foundation on which to rest our hope. If we had 
no other basis of our hope than the fact that we 
loved God, we might seriously fear that our hope 
would yet bring us to shame. On the other hand, 
we could not have a better foundation for our 
hope than the consciousness that God loved us. 
God's love is a passion belonging to God, and can 
have no existence separate from its Divine Author. 
We can not take cognizance of it by our senses, 
but we can be made conscious of its influence ; 
we can be made to feel that we are the subjects 
on which it exerts its gracious power. In short, 
the Holy Spirit can make us feel that God loves 
us, and on this consciousness of the divine love 
we can build a "hope which maketh not 
ashamed." "The love of God," says Philippi, 
"does not descend upon us* as dew, in drops, but 
as a stream which spreads itself abroad through 
the whole soul, filling it with the consciousness 



WITNESS OF THE SPIRIT. 243 

of his presence and favor. And this inward per- 
suasion that we are the objects of the love of 
God is not the mere result of the examination 
of evidence, nor is it a vain delusion, but it 
is produced by the Holy Ghost." (Quoted from 
Hodge on Romans.) 

5. A direct testimony to the fact of their ac- 
ceptance with God has been the blessing of God's 
people in all ages. "By faith Abel offered unto 
God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by 
which he obtained witness that he was righteous, 
God testifying of his gifts." Of Enoch it is said, 
"Before his translation he had this testimony, 
that he pleased God." (Heb. xi, 4, 5.) The 
terms of this text can not be interpreted of any 
thing else than a direct witness from God to the 
fact of his acceptance with him. To Isaiah the 
seraph said, "Thine iniquity is taken away, and 
thy sin purged " (Isa. vi, 7), a testimony as direct 
and explicit as it is gracious. To the sick of the 
palsy Christ said, "Thy sins be forgiven thee" 
(Matt, ix, 2); to the woman "which was a sin- 
ner " lie said, "Thy sins are forgiven " (Luke vii, 
48). These persons were not left to infer their 
pardon from his works, or from any change in 
their hearts or lives; they had the knowledge of 
it by his direct testimony to the fact. It will not 



244 JUSTIFICATION. 

do to say that these are exceptional cases; that 
when Jesus was on earth he healed some sick 
people but that he does not do so now; and that 
neither does he now testify to people that their 
sins are forgiven. The healmg of bodily or men- 
tal infirmities was only an incidental matter in the 
great mission of Christ, but the pardoning of sin 
on proper terms was and is and ever will be, 
Christ's great work. As God is no respecter of 
persons, are we not warranted in the belief that 
this direct witness to the pardon of sin is the 
common heritage of all believers? 

6. Rom. viii, 15, 16: "For ye have not re- 
ceived the spirit of bondage again to fear, but ye 
have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we 
cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth 
witness with our spirit, that we are the children 
of God." In this text notice the following 
points: 1st. The explicit declaration of the di- 
rect witness of the Holy Spirit — "The Spirit 
itself beareth witness." This "witness" is not 
secondary or mediate, it is borne by * * the Spirit 
itself." 2d. The witness of the Holy Spirit is 
not isolated or alone ; it is a joint or co-witness ; 
it bears witness "with our spirit;" that is, it 
unites its witness with the witness of our spirit. 
"Not only do our own filial feelings toward God 



WITNESS OF THE SPIRIT. 245 

prove that we are his children, but the Holy 
Spirit itself conveys to our souls the assurance 
of this delightful fact. The Spirit itself (adrd xo 
7zv£u/xa, and not to aurd nueu/ia, which would 

mean the same spirit) is, of course, the Holy 
Spirit, (1) because of the obvious distinction be- 
tween it and our spirit; (2) because of the use 
of the word throughout the passage; (3) because 
of the analogy to other texts which can not be 
otherwise explained. Gal. iv, 6: 'God hath 
sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, 
crying, Abba, Father.' Rom. v, 5: 'The love 
of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy 
Ghost given unto us,' etc." (Hodge, in loco.) 

7. Rom. viii, 9: "But ye are not in the flesh 
but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God 
dwell in you. Now if any man have not the 
Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." It will not 
do to interpret the word "Spirit" in this text as 
meaning "mind," or " disposition," for the text 
expressly limits the term to the Spirit of Christ 
dwelling in the man as the great author and agent 
of sanctifkation. "It is obvious that the Spirit 
of Christ is identical with the Spirit of God. 
The one expression is interchanged with the 
other. If the Spirit of God dwell in you you 
are true Christians, for if the Spirit of Christ be 



246 JUSTIFICATION. 

not in you you are none of his. This is the 
reasoning of the apostle. 'Spirit of Christ,' 
therefore, can no more mean the temper or dis- 
position of Christ than 'Spirit of God ' can mean 
the disposition of God ; both expressions desig- 
nate the Holy Ghost, the third person in the 
adorable Trinity." (Hodge, in loco.) 



X 



INDEX. 



Page. 

" Baptism and Conversion," 141 

Baptism of Cornelius, . . • 131 

Baptism of the Holy Ghost, 143 

Baptismal Remission, 168 

"Baptism of Repentance," 128 

Believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, 216 

"Born of Water," 156 

Campbelltsm, 116 

Campbellism Makes Baptism the Only Condition of Par- 
don, ' 116, 118, 1 19-124 

Corinthian Church and Miracles, 137 • 

Cornelius and Caiaphas, 136 

Cornelius a "Penitent Seeker," 134 

Faith Apprehends the Blood of Christ, 205 

Faith and Depravity, 202 

"Faith Cometh by Hearing," 226 

Faith the Gift of God, 221 

" Forgiveness " Defined, . . . 57 

Imputation of Faith, 104 

Imputation of Righteousness, 70 

Impute, Meaning of, 92 

Imputation of Righteousness, Objections to, 98 

" Jesus Christ is the Son of God, Believe that," .... 216 

Justification and Sanctification, 8 

247 



248 INDEX. 

Page. 

Justification, Baptismal, 115 

Justification by Faith, Objections, 175 

Justification by Faith Only, Proved, 197 

Justification by Grace, 204 

Justification by Seven Causes, 179 

Justification by Works, 193 

"Justify," Defined, 7 

Justifying Faith, Nature of, 216 

"Pardon," 58 

Punishment, Unitarian Notion of, 37 

Remission, Baptismal, 115 

" Remission of .Sins, For the," 128 

Repentance and Faith, 194 

Righteousness, Faith Imputed for, 104 

Righteousness Imputed, 70 

Righteousness Imputed, Objections to, 98 

Sin, Consequences of, 50, 53 

Sin, Forgiveness of; Forgiveness of Penalty, 57 

Sin, the Judicial Penalty of, . • 51 

"Sin," vet "Sin Offering," 88 

Witness of the Spirit, 236 

Witness of the Spirit, Doctrine Stated, 229 

Witness of the Spirit, Objections to, . . . 230, 231, 234, 235 



INDEX OF TEXTS. 



Page. 

Genesis xix, 19, 30 

xix, 24 53 

Exodus xxxiv, 6, 7, 59 

Nehemiah ix, 17, 31, 62 

Psalms, xxv, 14, 240 

xxxii, 1, 90 

H, 14. , 3° 

Ixix, 27 32 

lxxviii, 38, 64 

xcviii, 2, 32 

cxliii, I, 2, 33 

Proverbs, iii, 32, 240 

Isaiah, xl, 2, 61 

xliii, 25, 26, 25 

xlv, 24, 25, 26, 78 

n, 5-8, 33 

liii, II, 10 

Jeremiah xxiii, 6, 79 

Daniel xii, 3, 10 

Matthew iii, II, 125 

xviii, 25-35, 68 

xxv, 14, 43 

xxviii, 19, 143 

Mark i, 4, 128 

ix, 17-29, 224 

^, 39, 138 

xi, 25, 67 

249 



250 INDEX TO TEXTS. 

Page. 

Mark xvi, 16, 1 60 

Luke iii, 3, 128 

xviii, 13, 14, 27 

xix, 13, 43 

John iii, 5, 155 

v, 36, 233 

vi, 27-29, 203 

xi, 49-52, J 36 

xii, 42, 201 

Acts, ii, 37, 38, . 124, 141 

iii, 16, 224 

x, 34-48, 131 

xi, 15-18, 131 

xiii, 3 8 > 39> • • 27 

xv, 7-1 1, . . ." 131 

xxii, 16, 150 

Romans i, 17, 18, ^3 

iii, 19-23, 202 

iii, 21, 22, 80 

iii, 24-26, 205 

iv, i-n, 20-25, 207-210 

iv, 3, 5» 9, 22-24, io 4 

iv, 4-6, 91, 95 

iv, 5-8, 28 

v, 5, 242 

v, 18, 19, 80 

vi > 3, 143 

vi, 17, 18, 147 

viii, 9, 245 

viii, 15, 16, 244 

x, 4, 86 

x, 17, 226 

I Corinthians, i, 13-15, 169 

h 30 87 



INDEX TO TEXTS. 25 I 

Page. 

1 Corinthians vi, II, 9 

xii, 13, 143 

2 Corinthians, v, 21, 88 

Galatians iii, 6-9 208-210 

Ephesians iv, 31, 32, 65 

v, 25, 26, 146 

Philippians iii, 9, 89 

Colossians iii, 13, 66 

Titus iii, 5, 163 

Philemon, 18, 93 

James ii, 17-24, 183 

1 Peter iii, 21, 161 

2 Peter i, I, 79 

I John iv, 19, 238 



0T?6f 



■ I 



■ 



■ 



: H 






Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: August 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



